Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 8 czerwca 2016 09:17:06 CEST, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a):
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:26:21 +0200
>> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>
>>> Therefore I think that repository metadata is the wrong place for
>>> storing the install-mask.conf file. It is configuration, specific to
>>> Portage (but not to the repository), so /usr/share/portage/config/
>>> would be a better location to store it.
>
>> ...which would mean we have to re-release Portage every time it
>> changes, which in turn means we can't do anything without having
>> shout at users to upgrade Portage, and upgrade, and upgrade...
>
>> systemd uses new path? Upgrade Portage. We support a new
>> localization? Upgrade Portage. We failed horribly and your system
>> no longer boots? Upgrade Portage.
>
>Even now not all files in /usr/share/portage/config/ are owned by
>sys-apps/portage. So if you expect path groups to change such
>frequently, create a subdirectory install-mask/ (similar to sets/)
>there and have packages install their configuration files in it.
>
>Alternatively, one could think about placing the path groups file in
>profiles/ which would still be better than repository metadata which
>looks totally wrong to me.

I though the goal was to rid profiles/ of files other than profiles.

I can change the GLEP to have paths apply with masters logic if you want. That shouldn't cause much trouble, considering that the mask is evaluated per package anyway.

>
>Another question, how are path groups supposed to work in Prefix?
>The GLEP doesn't address this.

Hmm... I would say the obvious solution is to apply the paths relatively to EPREFIX, wouldn't it?

>
>Ulrich


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)