| 1 |
On 28/02/14 16:18, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:28:30 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from an |
| 6 |
>> ebuild, ... |
| 7 |
> What is the intended goal? Can you give an example? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
- User has INSTALL_MASK="/lib/systemd" |
| 10 |
- Ebuild has INSTALL_MASK_OVERRIDE="/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd |
| 11 |
/lib/systemd/network" |
| 12 |
- Portage's default is to respect ebuild first, then users setting, |
| 13 |
unless he changes INSTALL_MASK_ORDER to respect his |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I completely agree using INSTALL_MASK is 100% responsibility of the user |
| 16 |
setting it, it's like blind 'rm -f', but some people |
| 17 |
don't agree and keep attacking me. |
| 18 |
I'm using the word attacking because it's constant, relentless, |
| 19 |
repeating and I don't see an end to it. I believe Poly-C just |
| 20 |
proofed that point in this thread. |
Archives