Stuart Henderson <s...@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.
