On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 10:03 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > 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. > > > W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico > napisał: > > A binary package should > > use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time. > > > > Wait a minute! This doesn't make any sense. The whole point of having > separate PKG_INSTALL_MASK and INSTALL_MASK is to be able to strip stuff > from more complete binary packages, not to force original restrictions > forever.
These discussions also mentions PKG_INSTALL_MASK while the actual patches only mention INSTALL_MASK. I am getting somewhat confused, does the patches support PKG_INSTALL_MASK too or do you only intend to support this new exclusion syntax in INSTALL_MASK? Jocke