1 |
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
2 |
> On 27/8/2005 13:34:15, Brian Harring (ferringb@g.o) wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > Rough filtering stack- |
5 |
> > profiles/package.mask |
6 |
> > /etc/make.profile/package.mask (incremental through subprofiles) |
7 |
> > users package.mask, and users package.unmask |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Ordered it in that fashion to show that it's effectively repository |
10 |
> > filtering, profile filtering, user filtering; if you view it as |
11 |
> > seperate entities with filters stacked up (how the rewrite implements |
12 |
> > it), package.mask being repository metadata becomes clear. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Would it make sense to simply relocate the global package.mask |
15 |
> and package.unmask to the base profile from which all profiles |
16 |
> derive (haven't checked that they all do)? |
17 |
No global unmask; |
18 |
What you're proposing is actually exactly what I'm against; if I |
19 |
choose to use my own profile that's not bound to the tree's profile, I |
20 |
should still have my repository masked by the global profile.mask |
21 |
that's in it. |
22 |
|
23 |
Shifting it to base profile forces me to either copy the package.mask |
24 |
(or symlink it, which isn't possible in remote), or do without it |
25 |
(bad, able to hit packages with security holes and stuff that |
26 |
shouldn't be used). |
27 |
|
28 |
repository package.mask is a seperate filter from profile filter.mask, |
29 |
basically. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Users's data could be placed in the users profile at |
32 |
> /etc/portage/profile instead of /etc/portage, and the concept of |
33 |
> global package mask/unmask as repository metadata would go away. |
34 |
global p.mask is a seperate thing from profile specific p.mask, which |
35 |
is the basis of me wanting it moved out of there :) |
36 |
~harring |