On 03/22/2018 05:52 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 15:59 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 03/15/2018 12:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
>>>    can do stuff like:
>>>
>>>      INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
>>>
>>> I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
>>> Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Michał Górny
>>>
>>> Michał Górny (3):
>>>   portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
>>>   portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
>>>   portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
>>>
>>>  bin/misc-functions.sh                |  30 ----------
>>>  pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py         | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>  pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py |  11 ++++
>>>  3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> As mentioned in #gentoo-portage today, the rationale for including the
>> INSTALL_MASKed files in CONTENTS is to that we can detect collisions
>> that would have occurred had people not been using INSTALL_MASK.
>>
>> Since people can use INSTALL_MASK to intentionally prevent collisions,
>> in cases where COLLISION_IGNORE is not appropriate (this is common
>> practice at my workplace), we'll need a new FEATURES setting to trigger
>> the new behavior where INSTALL_MASKed files still trigger file collisions.
> 
> Are we going to see this in Portage soon? And PKG_INSTALL_MASK too ?

Yes, I'll clean up the patches an resubmit them. Bug filed:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/651214
-- 
Thanks,
Zac