| 1 |
On 03/01/2014 12:28 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from an |
| 3 |
> ebuild, if user hasn't |
| 4 |
> set otherwise. |
| 5 |
> So it could be configured like USE_ORDER which is |
| 6 |
> "env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d" |
| 7 |
> So INSTALL_MASK_ORDER like "ebuild:${user's own INSTALL_MASK}" |
| 8 |
> This would be very helpful in preventing people from shooting themself |
| 9 |
> in the foot |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The only problem is that I propably don't have enough python skills to |
| 12 |
> make that happen w/ |
| 13 |
> sys-apps/portage. But does the suggestion make sense? Should I open a |
| 14 |
> feature request bug? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If you're using INSTALL_MASK, isn't it assumed that you're on your own |
| 19 |
and bugs filed while using it are invalid? Do we have to create |
| 20 |
REAL_INSTALL_MASK for people that really wanted those files removed anyway? |
Archives