Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 464912

Summary: emerge should make autounmask-written file name configurable
Product: Portage Development Reporter: Denis Lisov <dennis.lissov>
Component: Enhancement/Feature RequestsAssignee: Portage team <dev-portage>
Status: CONFIRMED ---    
Severity: enhancement CC: esigra
Priority: Normal    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 376695    

Description Denis Lisov 2013-04-07 06:08:32 UTC
emerge --autounmask-write=y does not allow the filename to be user-provided.
It would be nice to be able to


# emerge -p =gvfs-1.16.0

<...>
The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
 (see "package.unmask" in the portage(5) man page for more details)
# required by =gvfs-1.16.0 (argument)
# /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (28 Mar 2013)
# Gnome 3.8 Mask
=gnome-base/gvfs-1.16.0
# required by gnome-base/gvfs-1.16.0
# required by =gvfs-1.16.0 (argument)
# /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (28 Mar 2013)
# Gnome 3.8 Mask
=dev-libs/glib-2.36.0

# emerge -1 =gvfs-1.16.0 --autounmask-write=y --autounmask-filename=gnome-3.8

<emerges succesfully with masks written to /etc/portage/package.unmask/gnome-3.8>


If the settings in the named file are known to be overridden later, an error should be produced.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2013-04-07 18:07:30 UTC
This feels like feature bloat to me, since you can edit the files yourself if you feel the need to organize them.

(In reply to comment #0)
> If the settings in the named file are known to be overridden later, an error
> should be produced.

Doing a check for overrides is going to involve creating of dummy configurations and testing them to see how they interact with the relevant packages. It's certainly doable, but it's not a small amount of work.
Comment 2 Denis Lisov 2013-04-07 18:58:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> This feels like feature bloat to me, since you can edit the files yourself
> if you feel the need to organize them.

Well, why do we have --autounmask-write, then? You can copy the lines printed by --autounmask to the config files by hand.

> (In reply to comment #0)
> > If the settings in the named file are known to be overridden later, an error
> > should be produced.
> 
> Doing a check for overrides is going to involve creating of dummy
> configurations and testing them to see how they interact with the relevant
> packages. It's certainly doable, but it's not a small amount of work.

I do not mean complete coverage with dummy configurations. It may just remember which file was the setting taken from and check for every new setting proposed whether the source file of the original setting would be sourced later than the file to be written.
Comment 3 Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2013-04-08 01:22:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This feels like feature bloat to me, since you can edit the files yourself
> > if you feel the need to organize them.
> 
> Well, why do we have --autounmask-write, then? You can copy the lines
> printed by --autounmask to the config files by hand.

Well, I think it's obvious that --autounmask-write is useful to everyone. On the otherhand, making the file names configurable would only useful to people who make use of split configuration files, and who also don't keep all of the autounmask changes in a file named 99-autounmask or similar.