[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term)
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Oct 2022 19:59:00 +0300 |
> From: chad <yandros@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 12:23:43 -0400
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> > User separation goes out of the window, and this is one important
> > service the OS provides. To illustrate, one user could put malicious
> > .eln files all other users would execute.
>
> This is about installation writing files into a shared space on disk,
> right? If so, this is something for the Debian packagers to figure
> out, because doing that is their request. And anyway, I don't
> understand how do *.eln files are different from *.elc files, which
> are already written to shared disk space upon installation. What am I
> missing?
>
> At the risk of over-explaining due to message crossing mid-flight: the thing
> you might be missing is that
> Debian provides a mechanism for people to install *.elc files in a space
> shared by all users that is not
> writable by those users, and there are people that use this provision. Since
> these are used for *.elc files, it
> seems highly likely that they will be desired for *.eln files.
No, I don't think the similar handling makes sense here. The *.elc
files are architecture- and configuration-independent, whereas the
*.eln files are not. E.g., the same foo.elc could be used by user A
who runs Emacs 28 and by user B who runs Emacs 29. But the
corresponding *.eln files will be different, even though they were
produced from the same foo.el.
> Even in the face of a theoretical issue like "potential package combinations
> make it unworkable to pre-build a
> single set of emacs+emacs-packages", the practical situation is that such
> combinations exist and are used
> by Debian users to build a stable base of emacs+emacs-packages that is
> shared across users who
> cannot change that shared base (but can, of course, supplement it with their
> own packages, via site-lisp,
> user packages, etc.) As a practical goal, there is at least *some* impetus
> for Debian to provide such a stable
> base, and to make it as wide as reasonable. The basic mechanism for
> determining the size of that base is
> "which emacs-packages are made into debian-packages", (iff I understand
> correctly; I'm not a Debian
> expert).
I don't think this is relevant to the issue at hand.
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), tomas, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), tomas, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), chad, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Rob Browning, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/02
- Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Rob Browning, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Rob Browning, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Rob Browning, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Rob Browning, 2022/10/02
Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term), Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/03