28.02.2014 18:44, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> 
> On 28/02/14 16:18, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:28:30 +0200
>> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from an
>>> ebuild, ...
>> What is the intended goal? Can you give an example?
> 
> - User has INSTALL_MASK="/lib/systemd"
> - Ebuild has INSTALL_MASK_OVERRIDE="/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd
> /lib/systemd/network"
> - Portage's default is to respect ebuild first, then users setting,
> unless he changes INSTALL_MASK_ORDER to respect his
> 
> I completely agree using INSTALL_MASK is 100% responsibility of the user
> setting it, it's like blind 'rm -f', but some people
> don't agree and keep attacking me.
> I'm using the word attacking because it's constant, relentless,
> repeating and I don't see an end to it. I believe Poly-C just
> proofed that point in this thread.
> 

If the user set INSTALL_MASK improperly than he(read as 'He, NOT package
maintainer') should fix the stuff if it will break.

We allow user's to update glibc if they accidently set
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~arch(even if downgrading it is really PITA), why we
should behave differently here?

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead