On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:28:30 +0200
Samuli Suominen <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from an
> ebuild, ...
What is the intended goal? Can you give an example?
Ebuilds can already clean out their own image during install; as for
installing an INSTALL_MASK file, that doesn't make it actually
removes those files from the system which would mean that re-emerging
is necessary to make it happen. Unless we build introduce some post
install task that evaluates INSTALL_MASK and removes _everything_.
> ... if user hasn't set otherwise.
>
> So it could be configured like USE_ORDER which is
> "env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d"
> So INSTALL_MASK_ORDER like "ebuild:${user's own INSTALL_MASK}"
That sounds like unstable behavior, example scenario:
1. User has INSTALL_MASK unset.
2. User installs packages with it unset.
3. User installs your package, the ebuild INSTALL_MASK set.
4. User installs packages with the ebuild INSTALL_MASK set.
5. User sets INSTALL_MASK.
6. User installs packages with his/her INSTALL_MASK set.
The paths listed in the ebuild INSTALL_MASK are only masked in (4).
> This would be very helpful in preventing people from shooting themself
> in the foot
What do we try to prevent here? How would it prevent them from doing so?
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : [email protected]
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
