Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit

[Joakim Tjernlund]

On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 09:13 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> W dniu pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 08∶11 +0000, użytkownik Joakim
> Tjernlund napisał:
> > On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 20:22 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here are three of four INSTALL_MASK updates I've sent long time ago
> > > which were not really reviewed. The fourth patch added support
> > > for repo-defined install-mask.conf and I'll do that separately.
> > >
> > > Those patches focus on smaller changes. What they change, in order:
> > >
> > > 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
> > >    values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
> > >    and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
> > >
> > > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
> > >    pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
> > >    files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
> > >    Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
> >
> > Will this also remove corresponding split debug files?
> > There would be little/no point in keeping debug syms if the binary has been
> > MASKed
> >
>
> Nope. Add both paths to INSTALL_MASK. Expecting it to do implicit magic
> is a very bad idea.


Maybe but it also makes senses to get rid of them. To me it is only a matter

of applying PKG_INSTALL_MASK before applying strip debug, does that make sense ?



 Jocke