On 2014.02.28 14:44, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 28/02/14 16:18, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:28:30 +0200 > > Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> 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? > > - User has INSTALL_MASK="/lib/systemd" > - Ebuild has INSTALL_MASK_OVERRIDE="/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd > /lib/systemd/network" > - Portage's default is to respect ebuild first, then users setting, > unless he changes INSTALL_MASK_ORDER to respect his > > I completely agree using INSTALL_MASK is 100% responsibility of the > user > setting it, it's like blind 'rm -f', but some people > don't agree and keep attacking me. > I'm using the word attacking because it's constant, relentless, > repeating and I don't see an end to it. I believe Poly-C just > proofed that point in this thread. > > >
Samuli, You can't win this one. Consider ln -s /dev/null /lib/systemd/ or whatever. It achieves the same thing and you can't override it unless you also remove the symlink. INSTALL_MASK means I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING_AND_AM_PREPARED_TO_KEEP_THE_PIECES systemd and the components it has sucked in has become the centre of a religious war with Zelots on both sides. All an INSTALL_MASK_OVERRIDE would do is escalate the war. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
pgpLFfXk4wQ0s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
