This commit: commit a739934ffaccc2a4c847744d43b5e65bd800f364 Author: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> Date: Mon Jul 17 21:42:04 2023 +0200 profiles: mask obsolete acct-* packages for removal Signed-off-by: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> Broke the genpi64 project, which depended on acct-group/spi, acct-group/i2c and acct-group/gpio We removed our copies of these ebuilds when gentoo added them. Now that they're masked for removal, we can't even add our own copies back to our overlay, because the masking in gentoo's package.mask file also applies to any package of the same name from any repository, whether gentoo's or third party. Please do not mask packages without specifying the repository to mask them from.
(In reply to Michael Jones from comment #0) > Please do not mask packages without specifying the repository to mask them > from. Can't be done, doing this is unsupported by PMS (aka in profiles). Adding e.g. ::gentoo is a portage-specific feature only valid in /etc/portage. Pretty sure a package.unmask in the overlay would take priority though.
> Now that they're masked for removal, we can't even add our own copies back > to our overlay, because the masking in gentoo's package.mask file also > applies to any package of the same name from any repository, whether > gentoo's or third party. As a workaround/fix to this problem: what exactly uses them for you? Could we just bring in whatever they are to ::gentoo? > > Please do not mask packages without specifying the repository to mask them > from. It's nowhere near as simple as this. The repository syntax in package.mask is non-standard.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 737148 ***
(In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #1) > Pretty sure a package.unmask in the overlay would take priority though. Well, wrt the other bug now I'm not so sure. package.unmask exists in profiles (and kinda assumed they work) but pretty scarcely and is not defined by PMS.
(In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #4) > (In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #1) > > Pretty sure a package.unmask in the overlay would take priority though. > Well, wrt the other bug now I'm not so sure. package.unmask exists in > profiles (and kinda assumed they work) but pretty scarcely and is not > defined by PMS. Yeah, tried to be sure and seems these files are there for nothing. So, need bug #737148. Your best bet seem to be to ask your users to unmask until last rite period is over -- or consider what sam suggests.
> It's nowhere near as simple as this. The repository syntax in package.mask is non-standard. Are there plans to standardize this, and if so, is there a bug# i can track?
> As a workaround/fix to this problem: what exactly uses them for you? Could we just bring in whatever they are to ::gentoo? These two, which we inherited from Sakaki. https://github.com/jonesmz/genpi64-overlay/tree/master/sys-apps/rpi-spi https://github.com/jonesmz/genpi64-overlay/tree/master/sys-apps/rpi-gpio I don't think there's really much justification for moving them into gentoo proper, since they are workarounds for the raspberry pi 3 hardware being fairly janky. > So, need bug #737148. Your best bet seem to be to ask your users to unmask until last rite period is over -- or consider what sam suggests. This is what we'll do.
