On 03/16/2018 02:13 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 10∶07 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> napisał:
>> On 03/16/2018 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
>>> napisał:
>>>> 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(-)
>>>> I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
>>>> to do differently:
>>>> 1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
>>>> /var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
>>>> {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
>>>> (PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
>>>> use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
>>>> 2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
>>>> write the values from the environment to
>>>> ${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
>>>> there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
>>> I presume bin/phase-functions.sh __dyn_install is where I'm supposed to
>>> write them. Could you suggest where is the best place to read them back?
>> We can read them back just when they are needed.
>> PKG_INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the EbuildPhase class when
>> self.phase is "package". In order to preserve behavior, EbuildPhase will
>> have to create a temporary copy of ${D} and apply PKG_INSTALL_MASK to
>> it, for __dyn_package to use.
> But do I need to change anything for PKG_INSTALL_MASK? My original patch
> did not touch that, so it can just continue happening as it is now.
>> INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the dblink treewalk method like it is now.
> But we also need to read it for unmerge, correct?

Oh right. We should load it in the dblink _match_contents or getcontents
method, since we need it for operation of the _match_contents method
which is called by isowner.

>>> Should the merge code do that explicitly while handling INSTALL_MASK, or
>>> should some of the config classes do that?
>> The config class only needs to be involved if we want to expose some API
>> related to {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK there, but the config class is bloated
>> enough as it is so it's better to expose a helper class like the
>> ConfigProtect class.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to