Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@××××××××.com>
To: "gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o" <gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: "mgorny@g.o" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:12:35
Message-Id: 1521187911.4790.195.camel@infinera.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit by "Michał Górny"
1 On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 20:22 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > 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.
3 >
4 >
5 > Hi,
6 >
7 > Here are three of four INSTALL_MASK updates I've sent long time ago
8 > which were not really reviewed. The fourth patch added support
9 > for repo-defined install-mask.conf and I'll do that separately.
10 >
11 > Those patches focus on smaller changes. What they change, in order:
12 >
13 > 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
14 > values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
15 > and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
16 >
17 > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
18 > pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
19 > files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
20 > Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
21
22 Will this also remove corresponding split debug files?
23 There would be little/no point in keeping debug syms if the binary has been
24 MASKed
25
26 Jocke

Replies