From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-65132-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07CF139084
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:31:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D256E0C5C;
	Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:31:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61CD5E0BC6
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:31:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.190.2.204] (85-76-174-73-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.174.73])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: ssuominen)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E64233FB66;
	Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:31:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <53108EFE.7070509@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:28:30 +0200
From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, dev-portage@gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: efc61236-26a0-4940-84c3-f003b7f1a874
X-Archives-Hash: c20d9ada8e05dc1707f021ff01d28802

It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from an
ebuild, if user hasn't
set otherwise.
So it could be configured like USE_ORDER which is
"env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d"
So INSTALL_MASK_ORDER like "ebuild:${user's own INSTALL_MASK}"
This would be very helpful in preventing people from shooting themself
in the foot

The only problem is that I propably don't have enough python skills to
make that happen w/
sys-apps/portage. But does the suggestion make sense? Should I open a
feature request bug?