Re: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 28/02/14 11:17 AM, Thomas D. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> That said, what we could do (if this isn't done already) is have
>>  portage automatically elog or ewarn what files are excluded
>> from the system on merge time due to the INSTALL_MASK.  At least
>> that way, users would be able to see in the log what files were
>> removed, so when something they need -is- removed they'll be able
>> to see that right away. (note, i've never used INSTALL_MASK, so
>> I've no idea what portage reports)
>
> That's already happening.
>
> For example an INSTALL_MASK
>
> INSTALL_MASK="/etc/systemd/" INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK}
> /lib/systemd/" INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /lib64/systemd/"
> INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib/systemd/"
> INSTALL_MASK="${INSTALL_MASK} /usr/lib64/systemd/"
>
> is given. When you emerge a package you will see messages like
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Installing (1 of 1) sys-fs/udev-210
> * Removing /etc/systemd/ * Removing /lib/systemd/ * Removing
> /lib64/systemd/ * Removing /usr/lib/systemd/ * Removing
> /usr/lib64/systemd/ * checking 51 files for package collisions
>>>> Merging sys-fs/udev-210 to /
>
> [...]
>
> If you keep logs, elogv for example will also show this
> information:
>
> │ [...]                        │ │                              │
> │INFO: other                   │ │Removing /etc/systemd/        │
> │Removing /lib/systemd/        │ │Removing /lib64/systemd/      │
> │Removing /usr/lib/systemd/    │ │Removing /usr/lib64/systemd/  │
>
> The downside is that this message will always appear when you have
> set an INSTALL_MASK. Even for packages which don't install anything
> into the masked paths. So people maybe tend to ignore this
> information because it is always shown :)
>
> If this message would only be shown if the merged package is
> *really* affected by the INSTALL_MASK, this would be an
> improvement.

That just seems to be showing what paths are in the INSTALL_MASK and
are removed.  What I mean, rather, is that effectively the output of:

for mypath in ${INSTALL_MASK}; do find ${D}${mypath} -type f ; done

...would be reported an an elog/ewarn, ie, the actual directory tree
that is going to be removed.  This would also have the benefit of not
reporting anything if no files are being installed/merged under any of
the INSTALL_MASK locations..



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlMQuRoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDJnQD/e3+Sueyf+3gJSkL6GKVQJ6fA
cQo1Ogxo7Sk2ivzvA7UA/3zYVLSaaEXOsAAcEx6skXqgqIgESO9wSeXUjJvuYn5G
=m5Y2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----