Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed shift of files in the tree of non profiles files into seperate dir
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:39:22
Message-Id: 20050827113415.GZ1701@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed shift of files in the tree of non profiles files into seperate dir by "Kevin F. Quinn"
1 On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 01:17:50PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
2 > On 27/8/2005 10:42:25, Brian Harring (ferringb@g.o) wrote:
3 > > Hola all.
4 > >
5 > > Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
6 > > arch.list
7 > > categories
8 > > use.desc
9 > > use.local.desc
10 > > package.mask
11 > > updates
12 > >
13 > > be moved out of the profiles directory in the tree
14 >
15 > Not sure about package.mask. I thought that was part of the profile,
16 > as different profiles might package.mask separately. I know I use it
17 > in /etc/profile to postpone updates.
18 Rough filtering stack-
19 profiles/package.mask
20 /etc/make.profile/package.mask (incremental through subprofiles)
21 users package.mask, and users package.unmask
22
23 Ordered it in that fashion to show that it's effectively repository
24 filtering, profile filtering, user filtering; if you view it as
25 seperate entities with filters stacked up (how the rewrite implements
26 it), package.mask being repository metadata becomes clear.
27
28 Basically, think of it this way; what files/data *must* stay with a
29 repository? If I'm using (say) gentopia ebuilds, the p.mask they use
30 is specific to _their_ repository; my official gentoo repository
31 should not be p.mask'ing there stuff, it should only affect itself,
32 and any repository that is slaved to it (overlays, which aren't stand
33 alone).
34
35 At least that's what I think :)
36 ~harring

Replies