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 C33C6138F88 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC525E0C9D; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:17 +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 C3CABE0C8E for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43BB33FBBF for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.606, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bBSnIuJCBIW3 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B935333FBC9 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJOVk-0007NI-Ke for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:34:00 +0100 Received: from ppp118-209-75-102.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net ([118.209.75.102]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:34:00 +0100 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-75-102.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:34:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild? Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:33:45 +1100 Message-ID: References: <53108EFE.7070509@gentoo.org> 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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-75-102.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <53108EFE.7070509@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: a420ccb8-aed5-458b-a9e8-28b5406540a0 X-Archives-Hash: 83a702751e1ba2a25f5c06274835190b On 03/01/2014 12:28 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > 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? > > If you're using INSTALL_MASK, isn't it assumed that you're on your own and bugs filed while using it are invalid? Do we have to create REAL_INSTALL_MASK for people that really wanted those files removed anyway?