| Summary: | Patch to support PACKAGE_(UN)?MASK ( /etc/portage/packages.unmask | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Paul Belt <gaarde> |
| Component: | Core | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
Patches 4 files for use with /etc/portage/packages.unmask
updated patch |
||
|
Description
Paul Belt
2004-01-12 20:27:47 UTC
Created attachment 23717 [details, diff]
Patches 4 files for use with /etc/portage/packages.unmask
Read the patch. You'll see what I did.
This is IMO too special to consider. If it would make the /etc/portage location configurable I'd consider it, but just some files is a bad idea. Rework it if you want, otherwise I'll close this as wontfix. Created attachment 24117 [details, diff]
updated patch
Updated patch, dep-clean now uses ${PACKAGE_UNMASK}
maybe i'm missing something but all this does is remove entries that are in /etc/portage/package.unmask from the world file ? This patch does several things. In short, it adds support for PACKAGE_UNMASK and makes PACKAGE_MASK configurable in emerge. It also crudely adds support for package.unmask in dep-clean. Whomever hardcoded /etc/portage/package.mask in portage.py had a nice idea, but didn't finish the job (and should know better than to hardcode something like that). *** The files and changes are as follows: /usr/bin/dep-clean -- Remove contents of package.unmask from the world file before processing /usr/lib/portage/bin/portageq -- Add definition for package_unmask /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.py -- Add support for PACKAGE_UNMASK option, needs to be revisited for PACKAGE_MASK, which was hard-coded before /etc/make.globals -- Add defaults ok, thats cool ... but wtf is -A|--automatic for ? -A|--automatic allows one to optionally use the 'new code' in dep-clean. "It works for me." isn't exactly good QA policy. Feel free to to remove the -A option and the elif, etc, etc. It's the functionality I wanted to get into the tree. Is the fact that I put what probably should have been 2 patches into 1 confusing you? One patch is for dep-clean, the other is for emerge... both came about because of a hard-coded '/etc/portage/package.mask' in /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.py As I said before IMO it's not a good idea to make package.{un,}mask special cases. And adding a new env var for each portage config file is not an option from my POV.
|
