1 |
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:36 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> >>> **WARNING** |
6 |
> >>> |
7 |
> >>> If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" |
8 |
> >>> glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev contains |
9 |
> >>> "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule will |
10 |
> >>> likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any |
13 |
> >> issues? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> > I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a prefix |
16 |
> > for files installed by sys-fs/udev. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of |
19 |
> the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the |
20 |
> above mentioned directories. |
21 |
|
22 |
Well, the argument is that we don't use USE flags to prevent packages |
23 |
from installing small text files. It is the same reason we don't have |
24 |
an openrc USE flag to control installing init.d scripts. We're now |
25 |
talking about pretty far back in history but I think this was a |
26 |
general guideline before systemd even came along. |
27 |
|
28 |
> Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had |
29 |
> followed our previous advice? Seriously? |
30 |
|
31 |
Did we ever officially advise people to use INSTALL_MASK at all? I |
32 |
thought that was mostly a "you can keep the pieces if you break |
33 |
things" option we provide. IMO the risks of people misusing it are |
34 |
far greater than the possible harm of having a few hundred small text |
35 |
files installed on their system, but it is there if people really want |
36 |
to use it. |
37 |
|
38 |
However, having used the option in the past shouldn't hurt anybody. |
39 |
It only impacts people if they use it when they install udev, hence |
40 |
the news item. |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Rich |