# Hans de Graaff (12 Nov 2018)
# Mask ruby23-only packages for removal. These packages are not
# compatible with ruby24+ or they are old slots that are ruby23-only
# in Gentoo. Removal in 30 days. Bug #661262
app-text/glark
app-text/jist
dev-ruby/activerecord-deprecated_finders
dev-ruby/akismet:2
The QA_INSTALL_PATHS variable exempts paths from "unexpected paths"
warnings generated by metadata/install-qa-check.d/08gentoo-paths.
If the QA_STRICT_INSTALL_PATHS variable is set then any exemptions
in QA_INSTALL_PATHS are ignored.
Since we probably don't want to whitelist /nix for all ebuilds,
On 11/12/2018 03:33 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> QA_INSTALL_PATHS=( /nix )
>
That really, really, really doesn't belong there.
On 11/12/18 12:57 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 03:33 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> QA_INSTALL_PATHS=( /nix )
>>
>
> That really, really, really doesn't belong there.
I'm open to suggestions for alternatives. Ideas?
--
Thanks,
Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signatu
On 11/12/2018 04:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/12/18 12:57 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 11/12/2018 03:33 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>
>>> QA_INSTALL_PATHS=( /nix )
>>
>> That really, really, really doesn't belong there.
>
> I'm open to suggestions for alternatives. Ideas?
>
/var/lib/nix?
T
On 11/12/18 2:34 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 04:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 11/12/18 12:57 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2018 03:33 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
QA_INSTALL_PATHS=( /nix )
>>>
>>> That really, really, really doesn't belong there.
>>
>> I'm open to sug
On 11/12/2018 06:47 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> The idea being, to put it in the right place by default, and let people
>> override it with EXTRA_ECONF if they really want to download random
>> binaries from strangers and run them.
>
> I recommend to add /nix to the whitelist because this is the d
On 11/12/18 9:44 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 06:47 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea being, to put it in the right place by default, and let people
>>> override it with EXTRA_ECONF if they really want to download random
>>> binaries from strangers and run them.
>>
>> I recommen
On 11/13/2018 01:21 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> What's inherently wrong about nix having a file store under /nix? Is
> this purely about FHS?
>
It goes against not only the FHS, but against our existing policies and
common sense. There's no reason to expect that path to even be writable.
And nix s
