| 1 |
MIkey posted <200603041818.k24IIJCS011711@×××××××××××××××.net>, excerpted |
| 2 |
below, on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:18:22 -0600: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <mikey@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS |
| 8 |
>> | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace |
| 9 |
>> | them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe |
| 10 |
>> | client. They will be running in kiosk mode. No user will have the |
| 11 |
>> | ability to get to a window manager and browse around |
| 12 |
>> | in /usr/share/doc. They don't even know what the heck a man page is. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Please excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is INSTALL_MASK and where is |
| 17 |
> it documented? Can it exclude things from being included in binary |
| 18 |
> packages? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
INSTALL_MASK is similar to the CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK |
| 21 |
portage variables in that it takes a list of directories (or files, |
| 22 |
wildcarding is acceptable), settable in make.conf. portage will still |
| 23 |
package those files in binary packages, but won't install anything that |
| 24 |
matches INSTALL_MASK. Thus, you can stick /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc in |
| 25 |
it, and snag anything that would be installed to them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 29 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 30 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 31 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives