Bug 364633 – Record INSTALL_MASK-ed files in vardb

• Product: Portage Development
• Status: IN_PROGRESS ---

[Description Michał Górny 2011-04-24 07:41:04 UTC]

Currently, portage does not list files not being installed due to INSTALL_MASK in vardb, thus making it hard to keep track of which files were lost like that.

I'd like to create a nice tool to handle INSTALL_MASK changes, including rebuilding packages for which INSTALL_MASK change would result in installing additional files. Such an information would be crucial for that tool.

[Comment 1 Zac Medico 2011-04-25 08:15:58 UTC]

The current CONTENTS code generates entries as files are merged. We change it to generate CONTENTS entries from the content of $D just after the pkg_preinst phase and before the INSTALL_MASK code is called. This approach will also be useful to generate CONTENTS entries for cases in which entire directory trees can be moved directly from $D to $ROOT, as requested in bug #364457.

If we include the removed files in CONTENTS, and also create /var/db/pkg/*/*/INSTALL_MASK entries to indicate which files have been masked, would that be suitable for your purposes?

[Comment 2 Michał Górny 2011-04-25 08:22:38 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> If we include the removed files in CONTENTS, and also create
> /var/db/pkg/*/*/INSTALL_MASK entries to indicate which files have been masked,
> would that be suitable for your purposes?

Even the first one would be enough. Both will be great.

[Comment 3 Zac Medico 2011-04-25 08:32:41 UTC]

Should we also account for PKG_INSTALL_MASK? In order to do that, I suppose that we could revert this change from bug #300744 and save the original CONTENTS inside the xpak segment of each binary package:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=11afbedb749a78054d8c3337b1f32e03fd5f8c48

[Comment 4 Michał Górny 2011-04-25 08:37:55 UTC]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Should we also account for PKG_INSTALL_MASK? In order to do that, I suppose
> that we could revert this change from bug #300744 and save the original
> CONTENTS inside the xpak segment of each binary package:
> 
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=11afbedb749a78054d8c3337b1f32e03fd5f8c48

I'm not a specialist here and I don't really care about PKG_INSTALL_MASK ATM. I don't think user is supposed to go hacking that deep.

[Comment 5 Michał Górny 2011-09-19 08:10:04 UTC]

What's the progress here? -9999 seems still not to list masked files in vardb and I'm just about to do first install-mask release.

[Comment 6 Zac Medico 2012-09-06 19:20:21 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> What's the progress here? -9999 seems still not to list masked files in
> vardb and I'm just about to do first install-mask release.

Not implemented. ;)

[Comment 7 Zac Medico 2018-04-01 16:58:59 UTC]

I think we need to introduce a separate CONTENTS.INSTALL_MASK file so that we can easily toggle collision-protect behavior to use CONTENTS.INSTALL_MASK when desired.