| 1 |
On 03/18/2018 02:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico |
| 3 |
> napisał: |
| 4 |
>> A binary package should |
| 5 |
>> use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Wait a minute! This doesn't make any sense. The whole point of having |
| 9 |
> separate PKG_INSTALL_MASK and INSTALL_MASK is to be able to strip stuff |
| 10 |
> from more complete binary packages, not to force original restrictions |
| 11 |
> forever. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Okay, we should apply latest INSTALL_MASK settings when installing a |
| 14 |
binary package? That seems reasonable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I want to respect settings embedded in the binary package whenever it |
| 17 |
could be useful, since my intention if for binhost clients to be able to |
| 18 |
treat the binhost as a single source of truth, so that binary packages |
| 19 |
can be installed without dependency on source ebuild |
| 20 |
repositories/profiles, as discussed here: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/644990 |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Zac |
Archives