| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:43:41 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of |
| 7 |
> > package sets (much like portage handles currently). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds of |
| 10 |
> repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be code... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Simple things like getting a list of packages which own a particular |
| 13 |
file (for rebuilds) or grepping a variable are useful to users. |
| 14 |
For example, the x11 overlay provides a set to rebuild the xorg server |
| 15 |
modules after an update. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > We'd either want to add || ( ) here, or somehow explicitly specify |
| 18 |
> > that this is a one-of set. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> No, that's something that's determined by how the set's used, not by |
| 21 |
> what's in the set. There's no such thing as a "one-of" set; a set is |
| 22 |
> just a list of package dep specs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Hm, true. I guess noone will want to merge 'a random package matching |
| 25 |
a tag' :P. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives