1 |
On 03/22/2018 05:52 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 15:59 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
>> On 03/15/2018 12:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
>>> Hi, |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> Here are three of four INSTALL_MASK updates I've sent long time ago |
7 |
>>> which were not really reviewed. The fourth patch added support |
8 |
>>> for repo-defined install-mask.conf and I'll do that separately. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> Those patches focus on smaller changes. What they change, in order: |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those |
13 |
>>> values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries |
14 |
>>> and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of |
17 |
>>> pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes |
18 |
>>> files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files, |
19 |
>>> Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that. |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>>> 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you |
22 |
>>> can do stuff like: |
23 |
>>> |
24 |
>>> INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US" |
25 |
>>> |
26 |
>>> I have been using this via user patches since the last submission. |
27 |
>>> Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now. |
28 |
>>> |
29 |
>>> -- |
30 |
>>> Best regards, |
31 |
>>> Michał Górny |
32 |
>>> |
33 |
>>> Michał Górny (3): |
34 |
>>> portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there |
35 |
>>> portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging |
36 |
>>> portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK |
37 |
>>> |
38 |
>>> bin/misc-functions.sh | 30 ---------- |
39 |
>>> pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------- |
40 |
>>> pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11 ++++ |
41 |
>>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) |
42 |
>>> |
43 |
>> |
44 |
>> As mentioned in #gentoo-portage today, the rationale for including the |
45 |
>> INSTALL_MASKed files in CONTENTS is to that we can detect collisions |
46 |
>> that would have occurred had people not been using INSTALL_MASK. |
47 |
>> |
48 |
>> Since people can use INSTALL_MASK to intentionally prevent collisions, |
49 |
>> in cases where COLLISION_IGNORE is not appropriate (this is common |
50 |
>> practice at my workplace), we'll need a new FEATURES setting to trigger |
51 |
>> the new behavior where INSTALL_MASKed files still trigger file collisions. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Are we going to see this in Portage soon? And PKG_INSTALL_MASK too ? |
54 |
|
55 |
Yes, I'll clean up the patches an resubmit them. Bug filed: |
56 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/651214 |
57 |
-- |
58 |
Thanks, |
59 |
Zac |