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

[Marius Mauch]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:34:24 -0700
"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote:

> 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:
> >  > > 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/*


The handling code for all package.mask files is identical, in
particular they all support recursion (just search for "package.mask"
in portage/__init__.py).

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.