| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:26:21 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> Therefore I think that repository metadata is the wrong place for |
| 7 |
>> storing the install-mask.conf file. It is configuration, specific to |
| 8 |
>> Portage (but not to the repository), so /usr/share/portage/config/ |
| 9 |
>> would be a better location to store it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> ...which would mean we have to re-release Portage every time it |
| 12 |
> changes, which in turn means we can't do anything without having |
| 13 |
> shout at users to upgrade Portage, and upgrade, and upgrade... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> systemd uses new path? Upgrade Portage. We support a new |
| 16 |
> localization? Upgrade Portage. We failed horribly and your system |
| 17 |
> no longer boots? Upgrade Portage. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Even now not all files in /usr/share/portage/config/ are owned by |
| 20 |
sys-apps/portage. So if you expect path groups to change such |
| 21 |
frequently, create a subdirectory install-mask/ (similar to sets/) |
| 22 |
there and have packages install their configuration files in it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Alternatively, one could think about placing the path groups file in |
| 25 |
profiles/ which would still be better than repository metadata which |
| 26 |
looks totally wrong to me. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Another question, how are path groups supposed to work in Prefix? |
| 29 |
The GLEP doesn't address this. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ulrich |
Archives