On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On 27/8/2005 13:34:15, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Rough filtering stack- > > profiles/package.mask > > /etc/make.profile/package.mask (incremental through subprofiles) > > users package.mask, and users package.unmask > > > > Ordered it in that fashion to show that it's effectively repository > > filtering, profile filtering, user filtering; if you view it as > > seperate entities with filters stacked up (how the rewrite implements > > it), package.mask being repository metadata becomes clear. > > Would it make sense to simply relocate the global package.mask > and package.unmask to the base profile from which all profiles > derive (haven't checked that they all do)? No global unmask; What you're proposing is actually exactly what I'm against; if I choose to use my own profile that's not bound to the tree's profile, I should still have my repository masked by the global profile.mask that's in it.
Shifting it to base profile forces me to either copy the package.mask (or symlink it, which isn't possible in remote), or do without it (bad, able to hit packages with security holes and stuff that shouldn't be used). repository package.mask is a seperate filter from profile filter.mask, basically. > Users's data could be placed in the users profile at > /etc/portage/profile instead of /etc/portage, and the concept of > global package mask/unmask as repository metadata would go away. global p.mask is a seperate thing from profile specific p.mask, which is the basis of me wanting it moved out of there :) ~harring
pgpUK00XA3PyJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
