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

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 10∶07 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
napisał:
> On 03/16/2018 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> > napisał:
> > > On 03/15/2018 12:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
> > > >    can do stuff like:
> > > >
> > > >      INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
> > > >
> > > > I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
> > > > Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Michał Górny
> > > >
> > > > Michał Górny (3):
> > > >   portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
> > > >   portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
> > > >   portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
> > > >
> > > >  bin/misc-functions.sh                |  30 ----------
> > > >  pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py         | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > >  pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py |  11 ++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
> > > to do differently:
> > >
> > > 1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
> > > /var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
> > > {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
> > > (PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
> > > use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
> > > 2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
> > > write the values from the environment to
> > > ${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
> > > there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
> >
> > I presume bin/phase-functions.sh __dyn_install is where I'm supposed to
> > write them. Could you suggest where is the best place to read them back?
>
> We can read them back just when they are needed.
>
> PKG_INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the EbuildPhase class when
> self.phase is "package". In order to preserve behavior, EbuildPhase will
> have to create a temporary copy of ${D} and apply PKG_INSTALL_MASK to
> it, for __dyn_package to use.

But do I need to change anything for PKG_INSTALL_MASK? My original patch
did not touch that, so it can just continue happening as it is now.

> INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the dblink treewalk method like it is now.

But we also need to read it for unmerge, correct?

> > Should the merge code do that explicitly while handling INSTALL_MASK, or
> > should some of the config classes do that?
>
> The config class only needs to be involved if we want to expose some API
> related to {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK there, but the config class is bloated
> enough as it is so it's better to expose a helper class like the
> ConfigProtect class.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny