<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Rick van der Zwet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:info@rickvanderzwet.nl" target="_blank">info@rickvanderzwet.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Quite some time ago, their has been comments in the changelog (06.c4)<br>
stating that running easy_install without /dev/urandom should be<br>
possible:<br>
Fixed not allowing os.open() of paths outside the sandbox, even if<br>
they are opened read-only (e.g. reading /dev/urandom for random<br>
numbers, as is done by os.urandom() on some platforms).<br>
<br>
While this was back in 2006, I was wondering what the current state of<br>
affairs which regards of requiring the /dev/urandom as of today? Am I<br>
looking at a feature request, bug report or design limitation?<br></blockquote><div><br>You're confusing easy_install's internal sandboxing with running easy_install in a chroot environment. easy_install runs setup scripts in a Python sandbox that disallows certain file accesses in order to handle badly-coded setup.py files that copy files directly to guessed installation locations, instead of relying on the distutils to do the copying. The change notes you're reading are discussing *that* sandbox, which is internal to Python/setuptools and is unrelated to chrooting.<br>
<br></div></div>