Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
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
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
On 03/18/2018 02:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > 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. Okay, we should apply latest INSTALL_MASK settings when installing a binary package? That seems reasonable. I want to respect settings embedded in the binary package whenever it could be useful, since my intention if for binhost clients to be able to treat the binhost as a single source of truth, so that binary packages can be installed without dependency on source ebuild repositories/profiles, as discussed here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/644990 -- Thanks, Zac signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 09:13 +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 pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 08∶11 +, użytkownik Joakim
> Tjernlund napisał:
> > On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 20:22 +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.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Will this also remove corresponding split debug files?
> > There would be little/no point in keeping debug syms if the binary has been
> > MASKed
> >
>
> Nope. Add both paths to INSTALL_MASK. Expecting it to do implicit magic
> is a very bad idea.
Maybe but it also makes senses to get rid of them. To me it is only a matter
of applying PKG_INSTALL_MASK before applying strip debug, does that make sense ?
Jocke
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
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. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
