| 1 |
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 16:36 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > > **WARNING** |
| 5 |
> > > > |
| 6 |
> > > > If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" |
| 7 |
> > > > glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev |
| 8 |
> > > > contains |
| 9 |
> > > > "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule |
| 10 |
> > > > will |
| 11 |
> > > > likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any |
| 14 |
> > > issues? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a |
| 17 |
> > prefix |
| 18 |
> > for files installed by sys-fs/udev. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of |
| 21 |
> the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the |
| 22 |
> above mentioned directories. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had |
| 25 |
> followed our previous advice? Seriously? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm pretty sure we've never officially advised anyone to remove |
| 28 |
important directories via INSTALL_MASK. INSTALL_MASK on unit |
| 29 |
directories will not affect udev users. On the other hand, if someone |
| 30 |
was overzealous and stripped whole /lib/systemd... no compassion from |
| 31 |
me, sorry. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
We don't go out of way to support people using USE=-* either, yet that |
| 34 |
is certainly *less stupid* than stripping arbitrary directory trees. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Best regards, |
| 38 |
Michał Górny |
Archives