Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:21:20
Message-Id: 5310A969.9040501@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild? by hasufell
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA256
3
4 On 28/02/14 09:59 AM, hasufell wrote:
5 > Samuli Suominen:
6 >> It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from
7 >> an ebuild, if user hasn't set otherwise. So it could be
8 >> configured like USE_ORDER which is
9 >> "env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d" So
10 >> INSTALL_MASK_ORDER like "ebuild:${user's own INSTALL_MASK}" This
11 >> would be very helpful in preventing people from shooting
12 >> themself in the foot
13 >
14 >> The only problem is that I propably don't have enough python
15 >> skills to make that happen w/ sys-apps/portage. But does the
16 >> suggestion make sense? Should I open a feature request bug?
17 >
18 >
19 > Introducing something like INSTALL_MASK_ORDER gives the user
20 > effectively more ways to shoot himself in the foot, especially when
21 > ebuilds start to rely on INSTALL_MASK in non-trivial ways (and I am
22 > sure people will come up with stuff).
23 >
24 > Besides that, it is a very intrusive change of behavior.
25 >
26 > Anyway... I don't care about people who break their systems in such
27 > stupid ways. It's not more dangerous than one of the other thousand
28 > things you can do to break gentoo, such as "--nodeps".
29 >
30 > They gotta handle it.
31 >
32
33 I'm with hasufell here. INSTALL_MASK is a Big Freakin' Hammer; it
34 should stay that way and we should just focus on ensuring users that
35 use it know exactly what they are getting into.
36
37 That said, what we could do (if this isn't done already) is have
38 portage automatically elog or ewarn what files are excluded from the
39 system on merge time due to the INSTALL_MASK. At least that way,
40 users would be able to see in the log what files were removed, so when
41 something they need -is- removed they'll be able to see that right away.
42 (note, i've never used INSTALL_MASK, so I've no idea what portage reports)
43 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
44 Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
45
46 iF4EAREIAAYFAlMQqWkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA+mQEAkb7Gka8o+/sTIKqxWOvyoy8L
47 4QM0E725U0fFB6dWqMEA/1sy2vluJUINbyl3Os/F55NlQ9f2rt0f92cCA9scdJ5v
48 =NRRC
49 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies