| 1 |
On 01/03/14 04:55, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 2 |
> 3. Some profiles also override INSTALL_MASK, such as Gentoo/FreeBSD, because |
| 3 |
> systemd does not apply there. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Wow. I don't think we should allow this without first having exactly |
| 6 |
what was suggested in this thread, a way of redefining the order |
| 7 |
away from INSTALL_MASK_ORDER="profile:ebuild:user", because |
| 8 |
if we allow INSTALL_MASK usage in profiles without having a setting |
| 9 |
for the order, it'll always be INSTALL_MASK_ORDER="profile:user", |
| 10 |
and it's very hard for user to get his setting respected even if he |
| 11 |
wanted to. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Would it make sense to have the systemd/udev ebuilds check for the existence |
| 15 |
> of an overridden INSTALL_MASK variable and then print a very *loud* warning |
| 16 |
> to the user IF systemd is already installed OR if the user is installing it |
| 17 |
> for the first time (possibly to test it out or actually switching to it)? |
| 18 |
> The warning will also fire if packages containing unit files are |
| 19 |
> installed/upgraded. Such a warning could include a link to a Wiki article |
| 20 |
> explaining things in further detail, as well as stating bugs created as a |
| 21 |
> result of ignoring this message will be automatically closed as |
| 22 |
> RESOLVED::WONTFIX. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The most common opinion in this thread seems to be 'this is all just |
| 25 |
overkill, |
| 26 |
and you are on your own...' |
| 27 |
But adding such hackery to ebuilds when this is no way udev or systemd |
| 28 |
specific problem to begin, would be much, much bigger overkill (or rather, |
| 29 |
should I say, underkill? :-) |
Archives