On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > I completely agree using INSTALL_MASK is 100% responsibility of the user > setting it, it's like blind 'rm -f', but some people > don't agree and keep attacking me. > I'm using the word attacking because it's constant, relentless, > repeating and I don't see an end to it. I believe Poly-C just > proofed that point in this thread. >
Honestly, that is a problem in need of a non-technical solution. The purpose of INSTALL_MASK is for users to tell portage, "I know what I'm doing, don't mess with this path." Portage should do as it is told. If the user doesn't know what they're doing, they get to keep the pieces. If somebody gives you a hard time about it, there are solutions for that. I think using INSTALL_MASK to kill a few inodes that probably don't even have extents using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, and if you put some holes in your walls in the process I_TOLD_YOU_SO. However, I won't tell people they can't do it if they want to. It has a lot of uses I'd consider more productive in setting up embedded systems and such, and in those cases having a war of escalation with overrides on top of overrides is just a PITA. Honestly, if we were going to do all this, the people annoyed by systemd units will just apply the override, and you'll be right back where you are now. So, regardless of where you fall on the debates around FHS, install of units without use flag, and so on, I don't think changing how INSTALL_MASK works really makes sense. By all means we can continue those debates and get Council votes where appropriate. Rich
