Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:03:25
Message-Id: 200610021603.32714.jstubbs@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask by "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
On Saturday 30 September 2006 04:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].
Posted on the bug before noticing there was a -dev thread. """ Just about everybody has the wrong idea here. 1) Specifying <sys-libs/glibc-2.4 in packages *does* mask >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask 2) What should be done is to specify >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and leave masking out altogether for packages The reason that package.mask was added to profiles was so that masking of atoms in packages could be killed off and it could become just a list of required packages. """ Like Marius said, using packages to both define what's required of "system" and for masking packages is bad design. That and the hope of eventually being able to kill off profiles/package.mask are the only reasons package.mask was introduced into profiles. <snip stuff that Mike responded to correctly>
> I cannot find myself any reason for such a behaviour change, but I'm open > to be proven wrong.
The original reason for specifying masking in both packages and package.mask was that there were portage versions that didn't look at package.mask. That was a long time ago though, so masking should really be dropped from packages altogether at this late stage. However, masking in packages only is still supported. If there is a reason that the plans for killing off that support should be suspended, that's also viable. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>