Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> On 2021/09/09 16:45, Kevin Lo wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 07:05:26AM +0000, Yifei Zhan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21/09/09 02:35PM, Kevin Lo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This has been discussed before:
> > > > https://marc.info/?t=157811343800002&r=1&w=2
> > >
> > > Is there an unified path list for IME that I'm not aware of? I've read
> > > that thread before but it doesn't mention chromium and I still have to
> > > add that path manually here.
> >
> > I'd prefer not to add IMEs to unveil.main. It would be useful to mention how
> > to enable IMEs in firefox/chromium readme, thanks.
> >
>
> Having users add to unveil.XX files on their own system is a problem.
> If done, and unveil.XX is later updated in the port (say, to add a new
> path required by the browser or some library it uses), when the user
> runs pkg_add -u, the new paths *won't* be merged automatically.
>
> Maybe something can be done to unify the paths for IMEs but that will
> take time; for now I would recommend that where people are experiencing
> a problem, we add those paths to the browser ports..
These two programs (chrome and firefox) that have their unveil and pledge
configurations in /etc are special. During pledge development in chrome,
I proposed this approach to robert -- to save him build time. This mechanism
was proposed as a convenience to the developer.
Maybe robert should go back to hard-coding the lists inside the program.
Let me be firm. The files are owned by root. They are part of the
system. They are delivered by pkg_add. pkg_add should continue to
smash them when upgrades happen.
These files do NOT belong to the user.
If someone edits them, they are on your own.
No comments:
Post a Comment