| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ian Stakenvicius: |
| 5 |
> On 28/02/14 11:17 AM, Thomas D. wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hi, |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 9 |
>>> That said, what we could do (if this isn't done already) is |
| 10 |
>>> have portage automatically elog or ewarn what files are |
| 11 |
>>> excluded from the system on merge time due to the INSTALL_MASK. |
| 12 |
>>> At least that way, users would be able to see in the log what |
| 13 |
>>> files were removed, so when something they need -is- removed |
| 14 |
>>> they'll be able to see that right away. (note, i've never used |
| 15 |
>>> INSTALL_MASK, so I've no idea what portage reports) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> That's already happening. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> For example an INSTALL_MASK |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> INSTALL_MASK="/etc/systemd/" INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} |
| 22 |
>> /lib/systemd/" INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /lib64/systemd/" |
| 23 |
>> INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib/systemd/" |
| 24 |
>> INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib64/systemd/" |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>> is given. When you emerge a package you will see messages like |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> [...] |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
>>>>> Installing (1 of 1) sys-fs/udev-210 |
| 31 |
>> * Removing /etc/systemd/ * Removing /lib/systemd/ * Removing |
| 32 |
>> /lib64/systemd/ * Removing /usr/lib/systemd/ * Removing |
| 33 |
>> /usr/lib64/systemd/ * checking 51 files for package collisions |
| 34 |
>>>>> Merging sys-fs/udev-210 to / |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>> [...] |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>> If you keep logs, elogv for example will also show this |
| 39 |
>> information: |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>> │ [...] │ │ |
| 42 |
>> │ │INFO: other │ │Removing /etc/systemd/ |
| 43 |
>> │ │Removing /lib/systemd/ │ │Removing /lib64/systemd/ |
| 44 |
>> │ │Removing /usr/lib/systemd/ │ │Removing /usr/lib64/systemd/ |
| 45 |
>> │ |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
>> The downside is that this message will always appear when you |
| 48 |
>> have set an INSTALL_MASK. Even for packages which don't install |
| 49 |
>> anything into the masked paths. So people maybe tend to ignore |
| 50 |
>> this information because it is always shown :) |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
>> If this message would only be shown if the merged package is |
| 53 |
>> *really* affected by the INSTALL_MASK, this would be an |
| 54 |
>> improvement. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> That just seems to be showing what paths are in the INSTALL_MASK |
| 57 |
> and are removed. What I mean, rather, is that effectively the |
| 58 |
> output of: |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> for mypath in ${INSTALL_MASK}; do find ${D}${mypath} -type f ; |
| 61 |
> done |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> ...would be reported an an elog/ewarn, ie, the actual directory |
| 64 |
> tree that is going to be removed. This would also have the benefit |
| 65 |
> of not reporting anything if no files are being installed/merged |
| 66 |
> under any of the INSTALL_MASK locations.. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Yes, that would make it easier to catch funny things. I remember a bug |
| 73 |
report where some user was messing with INSTALL_MASK and |
| 74 |
"/usr/share/locale/" and didn't notice that he effectively removed all |
| 75 |
language support... and started filing random bug reports. Took quite |
| 76 |
a while before someone spotted that crap in "emerge --info". |
| 77 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTELpnAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzW7kIAIqxnVP7ToRXh7kG8M+dIqyA |
| 80 |
qZvVnLUcMHsIkw4cbWNMwAHiRhuSnhzoT6aY/LWT3VD3AxHfIjlI2ylbTihl7Q4c |
| 81 |
XLCusLk1HdHQWJN9yZJcUrwZNzTQSCi54xZBq8CelC5cK5k9w4MNSpje/NsbMfWC |
| 82 |
jRDIUjbRVbDfkHVDxzRLCewnNnvrGa1yhibMR9fcQ2Nh8ifVQZdBavwBJiZ45bhJ |
| 83 |
1vzNbrr2ghfl6Rza+yA+tjQRU4MvTR4CaIrtBkSHwZopwyuSBBhhAjj2pzrQDakP |
| 84 |
56XsUDmZ528h1+0Qen81I6Ms9SffoRAqCcs/6YrdEDXQESDuzwCEB7U5cOZXvlA= |
| 85 |
=BW6V |
| 86 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives