Dnia 8 czerwca 2016 09:17:06 CEST, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:26:21 +0200 >> Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> Therefore I think that repository metadata is the wrong place for >>> storing the install-mask.conf file. It is configuration, specific to >>> Portage (but not to the repository), so /usr/share/portage/config/ >>> would be a better location to store it. > >> ...which would mean we have to re-release Portage every time it >> changes, which in turn means we can't do anything without having >> shout at users to upgrade Portage, and upgrade, and upgrade... > >> systemd uses new path? Upgrade Portage. We support a new >> localization? Upgrade Portage. We failed horribly and your system >> no longer boots? Upgrade Portage. > >Even now not all files in /usr/share/portage/config/ are owned by >sys-apps/portage. So if you expect path groups to change such >frequently, create a subdirectory install-mask/ (similar to sets/) >there and have packages install their configuration files in it. > >Alternatively, one could think about placing the path groups file in >profiles/ which would still be better than repository metadata which >looks totally wrong to me.
I though the goal was to rid profiles/ of files other than profiles. I can change the GLEP to have paths apply with masters logic if you want. That shouldn't cause much trouble, considering that the mask is evaluated per package anyway. > >Another question, how are path groups supposed to work in Prefix? >The GLEP doesn't address this. Hmm... I would say the obvious solution is to apply the paths relatively to EPREFIX, wouldn't it? > >Ulrich -- Best regards, Michał Górny (by phone)
