| 1 |
On 01/06/2017 12:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 9:14:54 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> The nice thing about ::graveyard or similar is that its a clear demarcation |
| 5 |
>> between maintained (in tree) and unmaintained (graveyard.) It also means |
| 6 |
>> that people doing actual maintenance work can basically ignore the |
| 7 |
>> graveyard as a matter of policy. The ebuilds are archived there (for users) |
| 8 |
>> but since they are unmaintained they may not work correctly. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This is what the Java team used to do. There was a java-graveyard-overlay. I |
| 11 |
> do not believe any package ever moved there came back into the tree. It did |
| 12 |
> result in a pretty messed up overlay, but makes it a user problem. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> At the same time, something could always be restored from VC. Not like removal |
| 15 |
> is removing all history and traces. Thus not sure such overlay is really even |
| 16 |
> beneficial. Using it could cause lots of problems if they just care about 1 |
| 17 |
> package or a few. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There's a nice trick around that, actually: let's assume the overlay is |
| 21 |
called "foo-overlay". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In package.mask: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
*/*::foo-overlay |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
will mask all packages in the overlay. You can then add packages to |
| 28 |
package.unmask: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
pkg-cat/foobar::foo-overlay |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
That should alleviate most issues, though it can make dependencies a |
| 33 |
PITA if those deps are also in the overlay. In that case, emerge should |
| 34 |
yell at you and suggest adding lines to package.unmask. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 38 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 39 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives