From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7561C138247 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EF11E0AF7; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:59:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foo.stuge.se (foo.stuge.se [212.116.89.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AACDE0AC7 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 8637 invoked by uid 501); 11 Jan 2014 18:59:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20140111185938.8636.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:59:38 +0100 From: Peter Stuge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140111112019.45f81ec6@gentoo.org> <20140111115338.26339.qmail@stuge.se> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 702800e5-8a42-4177-b936-2e7ef4cf8e70 X-Archives-Hash: d9ee82e2914fc0d83aa644d67c58dfe3 Duncan wrote: > >> INSTALL_MASK="systemd bash-completion" > >> > >> What are your thoughts? > > > > It seems like this will generally duplicate all -USE flags. > > > > Would it make sense to instead have a single setting which changes the > > meaning of USE to be that everything not USEd is install-masked? > > No, this would not be a duplicate. I did generalize, but think more about this - certainly for both Michał's examples I have already either set or unset "systemd" and "bash-completion" in USE. > Gentoo policy is that the mere installation of a few small and > harmless if not used files should not be controlled by USE flags Policy doesn't matter if they doesn't make sense. Maybe I am asking if Michał's idea could be implemented by changing that policy. An INSTALL_MASK setting in make.conf doesn't require recompile any less than USE setting already do. > install-mask is an existing general control mechanism fit for the task. .. > So the next step in automation and safety is as proposed here, provide a > standard location for pre-created "safe" mask files that a user can then > choose to activate .. > a less sharp and hazardous way of activating mask settings pre-cleared > as "safe" by gentoo devs The mechanism wouldn't change. I think this discussion is only about having the most expressive knobs. //Peter