| 1 |
Dnia 2014-02-28, o godz. 15:28:30 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from an |
| 5 |
> ebuild, if user hasn't |
| 6 |
> set otherwise. |
| 7 |
> So it could be configured like USE_ORDER which is |
| 8 |
> "env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d" |
| 9 |
> So INSTALL_MASK_ORDER like "ebuild:${user's own INSTALL_MASK}" |
| 10 |
> This would be very helpful in preventing people from shooting themself |
| 11 |
> in the foot |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The only problem is that I propably don't have enough python skills to |
| 14 |
> make that happen w/ |
| 15 |
> sys-apps/portage. But does the suggestion make sense? Should I open a |
| 16 |
> feature request bug? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't think this really makes sense. It sounds like putting a new |
| 19 |
carpet on top of spoiled milk. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
INSTALL_MASK is pretty much complete by itself. Letting ebuilds |
| 22 |
override INSTALL_MASK is pretty much going against the main goal |
| 23 |
of INSTALL_MASK. And this is going to cause users to want to override |
| 24 |
the override... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Which, pretty much, means that the hacks are going to pile up. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
How about just checking INSTALL_MASK in pkg_pretend() and dying when it |
| 29 |
removes udev? That should work and be quite easy to implement. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives