| 1 |
On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 15:59 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
|
| 2 |
> On 03/15/2018 12:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Here are three of four INSTALL_MASK updates I've sent long time ago |
| 6 |
> > which were not really reviewed. The fourth patch added support |
| 7 |
> > for repo-defined install-mask.conf and I'll do that separately. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Those patches focus on smaller changes. What they change, in order: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those |
| 12 |
> > values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries |
| 13 |
> > and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of |
| 16 |
> > pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes |
| 17 |
> > files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files, |
| 18 |
> > Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you |
| 21 |
> > can do stuff like: |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US" |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > I have been using this via user patches since the last submission. |
| 26 |
> > Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > -- |
| 29 |
> > Best regards, |
| 30 |
> > Michał Górny |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Michał Górny (3): |
| 33 |
> > portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there |
| 34 |
> > portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging |
| 35 |
> > portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > bin/misc-functions.sh | 30 ---------- |
| 38 |
> > pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------- |
| 39 |
> > pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11 ++++ |
| 40 |
> > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> As mentioned in #gentoo-portage today, the rationale for including the |
| 44 |
> INSTALL_MASKed files in CONTENTS is to that we can detect collisions |
| 45 |
> that would have occurred had people not been using INSTALL_MASK. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Since people can use INSTALL_MASK to intentionally prevent collisions, |
| 48 |
> in cases where COLLISION_IGNORE is not appropriate (this is common |
| 49 |
> practice at my workplace), we'll need a new FEATURES setting to trigger |
| 50 |
> the new behavior where INSTALL_MASKed files still trigger file collisions. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Are we going to see this in Portage soon? And PKG_INSTALL_MASK too ? |
Archives