Re: profile masking

Zac Medico <[email protected]> Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:42:52 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 8/14/20 1:08 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Zac Medico wrote:
> 
>> On 8/14/20 8:42 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>> Yes, I know I can add that in profile/package.mask but I am looking
>>> for the bigger picture here. This has to stop somehow, there need to
>>> be something that limits the mask scope to the repo/overlay it is
>>> defined.
> 
>> The scope is already limited, but this overlay inherits the mask because
>> it has the gentoo repo as its master (either implicitly or via a masters
>> setting in metadata/layout.conf).
> 
>> I suppose we could add an option to prevent this inheritance.
> 
> Like an option in repos.conf or layout.conf?
> 
> The problem I see with this is that preventing inheritance would disable
> files like license_groups or thirdpartymirrors. So overlays would have
> to maintain their own versions.

I've just tested, and it's possible to do this with a -* at the top of
the overlay/profiles/package.mask file, if we simply modify the the
grabfile_package function to allow the -* pass through (it currently
discards it as an invalid atom).

>>> I think a good start would be to consider /etc/portage the top
>>> profile and other subprofiles should be able to use the same features
>>> as /etc/portage.
>>>
>>> Portage could start supporting that now, but there would be a while
>>> until one can use them in Gentoo profile.
> 
>> We've got this bug open for the ::repo atom support:
> 
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/651208
> 
> I still believe that adding ::gentoo to every line in package.mask would
> be the wrong approach to the problem.

Of course, that would be silly. The per-repo package.mask scoping is
actually implemented internally by adding an implicit ::repo to each
atom in the package.mask file.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 981 B)