Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o, Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@××××××××.com>, "ulm@g.o" <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:08:29
Message-Id: ulfihouru@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking by Zac Medico
1 >>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Zac Medico wrote:
2
3 > On 8/14/20 8:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
4 >> Yes, I know I can add that in profile/package.mask but I am looking
5 >> for the bigger picture here. This has to stop somehow, there need to
6 >> be something that limits the mask scope to the repo/overlay it is
7 >> defined.
8
9 > The scope is already limited, but this overlay inherits the mask because
10 > it has the gentoo repo as its master (either implicitly or via a masters
11 > setting in metadata/layout.conf).
12
13 > I suppose we could add an option to prevent this inheritance.
14
15 Like an option in repos.conf or layout.conf?
16
17 The problem I see with this is that preventing inheritance would disable
18 files like license_groups or thirdpartymirrors. So overlays would have
19 to maintain their own versions.
20
21 >> I think a good start would be to consider /etc/portage the top
22 >> profile and other subprofiles should be able to use the same features
23 >> as /etc/portage.
24 >>
25 >> Portage could start supporting that now, but there would be a while
26 >> until one can use them in Gentoo profile.
27
28 > We've got this bug open for the ::repo atom support:
29
30 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/651208
31
32 I still believe that adding ::gentoo to every line in package.mask would
33 be the wrong approach to the problem.
34
35 Ulrich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] profile masking Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>