1 |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:53:12 -0700 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> >> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for |
4 |
> >> improvements or alternative approaches? |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Strikes me as a good way of causing extreme confusion for users... |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Perhaps it's not so confusing if the packages continue to behave |
9 |
> normally in the usual cases, but they are mapped into set space as |
10 |
> suggested earlier [1]. |
11 |
|
12 |
Then why not just make the things sets? Come up with a standard way of |
13 |
distributing sets as part of a repository, and let future EAPIs include |
14 |
deps upon sets. |
15 |
|
16 |
> > Consider sets in package.use, for example. Any specified flags |
17 |
> > should apply to the entire set. But what about set-property |
18 |
> > packages? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> In order to fit into the ebuild framework, the specified flags would |
21 |
> only apply to direct dependency atoms. Atoms pulled in by recursion |
22 |
> into other set-property packages would have the flags applied from |
23 |
> those respective set-property packages. |
24 |
|
25 |
Right, so you'd get the bizarre case that, given: |
26 |
|
27 |
cat/foo one |
28 |
cat/bar two |
29 |
cat/baz three |
30 |
|
31 |
The one flag applies onto to cat/foo, the three flag applies only to |
32 |
cat/baz but the two flag applies to cat/monkey and cat/hamster. |
33 |
|
34 |
Sets need to *look* different... |
35 |
|
36 |
> > Sets and packages aren't the same thing, and shouldn't be treated |
37 |
> > as if they are. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Packages and virtuals aren't the same thing either, but glep 37 |
40 |
> virtuals fit quite well into the existing ebuild framework. It seems |
41 |
> to me that set-property packages will also fit nicely into the |
42 |
> existing ebuild framework. |
43 |
|
44 |
GLEP 37 effectively abolishes virtuals. It doesn't try to overload new |
45 |
behaviour onto packages. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Ciaran McCreesh |