On 28/02/14 16:59, hasufell wrote:
> Samuli Suominen:
> > It would be very helpful if INSTALL_MASK could be overriden from
> > an ebuild, if user hasn't set otherwise. So it could be configured
> > like USE_ORDER which is
> > "env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d" So
> > INSTALL_MASK_ORDER like "ebuild:${user's own INSTALL_MASK}" This
> > would be very helpful in preventing people from shooting themself
> > in the foot
>
> > The only problem is that I propably don't have enough python skills
> > to make that happen w/ sys-apps/portage. But does the suggestion
> > make sense? Should I open a feature request bug?
>
>
> Introducing something like INSTALL_MASK_ORDER gives the user
> effectively more ways to shoot himself in the foot, especially when
> ebuilds start to rely on INSTALL_MASK in non-trivial ways (and I am
> sure people will come up with stuff).
>
> Besides that, it is a very intrusive change of behavior.
>
> Anyway... I don't care about people who break their systems in such
> stupid ways. It's not more dangerous than one of the other thousand
> things you can do to break gentoo, such as "--nodeps".
>
> They gotta handle it.I'm okay with that. That's how I see it too. I was merely trying to propose a solution for some users (and even few developers). At least I have this thread now I can refer them to in gmane, to show it was discussed and the general consensus is what it is and that they have to take responsibility for their INSTALL_MASK, not me, or any other ebuild maintainer.
