Dnia 12 czerwca 2016 11:49:26 CEST, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >On 06/12/2016 02:28 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Dnia 12 czerwca 2016 11:10:55 CEST, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> >napisał(a): >>> On 05/22/2016 01:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>> Introduce a new logic for INSTALL_MASK handling in merging code, >>>> replacing the old code that removed matching files and directories >>>> from imagedir in bash. The new code actually ignores matching files >>>> on-the-fly while testing for file collisions and merging files. >>>> The files are still written to CONTENTS, and output using "###" >zing >>>> to indicate being masked, yet are not actually merged to the >>> filesystem. >>> >>> Since collision-protect relies on existing files in its collision >test, >>> install-masked files are no longer going to trigger collisions. >Then, >>> since the install-masked files are still written to CONTENTS, it's >>> possible for the unmerge of one package to unmerge colliding files >that >>> belong to another package! >>> >>> There are a number of ways to solve this problem. For example, we >could >>> have the unmerge code ignore any files in CONTENTS that match the >>> INSTALL_MASK value that was used at merge time. >> >> Hmm, thinking about this more widely (i.e. actually thinking rather >than mimicking the old behavior), I think it would be better to >actually use the original file set for collision-protect. This will >make it possible to detect collisions that would otherwise be hidden >via INSTALL_MASK. > >Even then, we have to carefully consider how the absence of installed >files affects the collision test. It's safest for the unmerge code to >be >aware of the merge time INSTALL_MASK setting, and not try to unmerge >the >install-masked files.
But then it wouldn't unmerge the newly masked files as well. Getting this right will require a lot of effort, and we're less likely to screw something up if we keep it simple. -- Best regards, Michał Górny (by phone)
