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----- |