| 1 |
On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 10:03 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
|
| 2 |
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico |
| 6 |
> napisał: |
| 7 |
> > A binary package should |
| 8 |
> > use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Wait a minute! This doesn't make any sense. The whole point of having |
| 12 |
> separate PKG_INSTALL_MASK and INSTALL_MASK is to be able to strip stuff |
| 13 |
> from more complete binary packages, not to force original restrictions |
| 14 |
> forever. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
These discussions also mentions PKG_INSTALL_MASK while the actual patches
|
| 17 |
only mention INSTALL_MASK. I am getting somewhat confused, does
|
| 18 |
the patches support PKG_INSTALL_MASK too or do you only intend to support
|
| 19 |
this new exclusion syntax in INSTALL_MASK?
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Jocke |
Archives