On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> [snip] FIRE! [snip] "hacks" of tools, thank you very much! =:^) Glad you like it! Something that breaks isn't a solution though... > It's a specifically designed part of the whole gentoo support of > choice system you mention. I wouldn't call something that's added to our red herring (make.conf) as an afterthought "designed", but rather a lack of better approaches. In the Portage tree we could avoid users from having to mask files, because that could break their system anyway; eg. Go mask some typical files [1], you'll end up breaking package compilations in the long run as they need these files installed on your system. In Portage the /etc/package.* files are a good example, more advanced include / exclude file masking in the same way would certainly be a benefit and some kind of base / profile forced install unmask too. In other Package managers, I assume this madness isn't supported. In its current state, it certainly has its use cases; though it is often misused by unaware users that don't know what removal of certain files has as a consequence, that means it can do more bad than good... [1]: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-670094.html First INSTALL_MASK I came across searching for it online, particularly masking *.h, *.pc and Makefile* are very bad ideas. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
