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

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pią, 23.03.2018 o godzinie 00∶52 +0000, użytkownik Joakim
Tjernlund napisał:
> On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 15:59 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > 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(-)
> > >
> >
> > As mentioned in #gentoo-portage today, the rationale for including the
> > INSTALL_MASKed files in CONTENTS is to that we can detect collisions
> > that would have occurred had people not been using INSTALL_MASK.
> >
> > Since people can use INSTALL_MASK to intentionally prevent collisions,
> > in cases where COLLISION_IGNORE is not appropriate (this is common
> > practice at my workplace), we'll need a new FEATURES setting to trigger
> > the new behavior where INSTALL_MASKed files still trigger file collisions.
>
> Are we going to see this in Portage soon? And PKG_INSTALL_MASK too ?

It's in sys-apps/portage-mgorny. Whatever's going to land in sys-
apps/portage, it's probably going to be half-broken to satisfy
somebody's colleague's corner case of misusing INSTALL_MASK.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny