On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 10:03 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> napisał:
> > A binary package should
> > use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
> >
>
> Wait a minute! This doesn't make any sense. The whole point of having
> separate PKG_INSTALL_MASK and INSTALL_MASK is to be able to strip stuff
> from more complete binary packages, not to force original restrictions
> forever.
These discussions also mentions PKG_INSTALL_MASK while the actual patches
only mention INSTALL_MASK. I am getting somewhat confused, does
the patches support PKG_INSTALL_MASK too or do you only intend to support
this new exclusion syntax in INSTALL_MASK?
Jocke
