Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]

On 03/18/2018 02:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> napisał:
>>  A binary package should
>> use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
>>
> 
> Wait a minute! This doesn't make any sense. The whole point of having
> separate PKG_INSTALL_MASK and INSTALL_MASK is to be able to strip stuff
> from more complete binary packages, not to force original restrictions
> forever.

Okay, we should apply latest INSTALL_MASK settings when installing a
binary package? That seems reasonable.

I want to respect settings embedded in the binary package whenever it
could be useful, since my intention if for binhost clients to be able to
treat the binhost as a single source of truth, so that binary packages
can be installed without dependency on source ebuild
repositories/profiles, as discussed here:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/644990
-- 
Thanks,
Zac


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 224 bytes --]