| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> INSTALL_MASK="systemd bash-completion" |
| 3 |
> >> |
| 4 |
> >> What are your thoughts? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > It seems like this will generally duplicate all -USE flags. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Would it make sense to instead have a single setting which changes the |
| 9 |
> > meaning of USE to be that everything not USEd is install-masked? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> No, this would not be a duplicate. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I did generalize, but think more about this - certainly for both |
| 14 |
Michał's examples I have already either set or unset "systemd" and |
| 15 |
"bash-completion" in USE. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Gentoo policy is that the mere installation of a few small and |
| 19 |
> harmless if not used files should not be controlled by USE flags |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Policy doesn't matter if they doesn't make sense. Maybe I am asking |
| 22 |
if Michał's idea could be implemented by changing that policy. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
An INSTALL_MASK setting in make.conf doesn't require recompile any |
| 25 |
less than USE setting already do. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> install-mask is an existing general control mechanism fit for the task. |
| 29 |
.. |
| 30 |
> So the next step in automation and safety is as proposed here, provide a |
| 31 |
> standard location for pre-created "safe" mask files that a user can then |
| 32 |
> choose to activate |
| 33 |
.. |
| 34 |
> a less sharp and hazardous way of activating mask settings pre-cleared |
| 35 |
> as "safe" by gentoo devs |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The mechanism wouldn't change. I think this discussion is only about |
| 38 |
having the most expressive knobs. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
//Peter |
Archives