[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Alec Warner]

On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
>  > On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
>  > > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
>  > >  > Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
>  > >  > help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal.
>  > >  > That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up
>  > >  > with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to
>  > >  > quickly see which ones they were working on.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's
>  > >  > thoughts first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is
>  > >  > technically feasible at all.
>  > >
>  > > i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package
>  >
>
> > You want to add a metadata key and cache it you mean?
>
>
> i dont care terribly much about the logistics, just the results.  as long as
>  an ebuild can declare itself masked, it sounds good to me.
>
>  this doesnt preclude the other ideas as there are often times where you want
>  to have 1 global package mask piece (like large package set bumps ... so X or
>  KDE or GNOME or ...).
>
> -mike
>
>

[-gentoo-qa, +gentoo-portage-dev]

Original thread was splitting up package.mask entries.

Genone notes the code to do this already is basically in already (we
just don't invoke it for $PORTDIR/profiles afaik).

Genone, do we use existing code for package.mask (ie if we switch from
a file to  a dir will it break existing versions?  I am unsure if we
used the directory code for $PORTDIR/profiles/*

If we do then I say that is the easiest method.

MIke also mentioned a means for a single ebuild to mark itself masked.

I think this is useless without the use of a metadata key and I'm
still not sold on its usefullness....I could easily buy some sort of
bash var that is read by a tool to generate package.mask entries
though.  Seems fragile though.
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o mailing list