Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-libs/ncurses: punted from system in profiles
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:28:53
Message-Id: 20111206222748.GC18351@localhost.google.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-libs/ncurses: punted from system in profiles by Mike Frysinger
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:06:33PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 16:52:55 Brian Harring wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote: > > > > On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set which > > > > > is what would come in a stage3 rather than the current "stage3 is > > > > > the system set". then we could move virtual/ssh out of the system > > > > > set and into the "Gentoo default" set so it'd be easier for people > > > > > to drop/etc... but i'm not familiar enough with the portage support > > > > > atm to say how feasible such an idea would be. > > > > > > > > Similar to how we use packages.build to define the stage1 set, we could > > > > add a packages.default to define the stage3 set. Alternatively, we > > > > could use a meta-package to pull in the defaults, and adjust the > > > > stage3 build to pull in that meta-package automatically. > > > > > > the packages.default sounds like a good idea as then we'd be able to > > > tweak/stack it on a per-profile basis like existing files. i'll file a > > > release bug on the topic, and then we can talk about moving virtual/ssh > > > out of system and into that. > > > > We really need something generic here rather than just introducing new > > files; this basically duplicates sets for example. > > sets isn't in stable portage yet, right ? and is it stackable in profiles ?
Bluntly, portage set support from the tree isn't something I'm sure we really want to support /anyways/; it's fairly portage specific last I looked. Also, it isn't stackable from profiles. Simple example of why sets.conf cannot be relied on: # xorg sets [x11-module-rebuild] class = portage.sets.dbapi.VariableSet world-candidate = false variable = CATEGORY includes = x11-drivers Or using a literal overlay example: [jmbsvicetto sets] class = portage.sets.files.StaticFileSet multiset = true directory = ${repository:jmbsvicetto}/sets/ So for any non portage PM, we'd have to translate portage class name paths, know the actual signature of the target (VariableSet for example), and perfectly emulate that- also emualate the ${var:default} interpolation. So... there's no way in hell sets.conf can, nor should be, relied on if we're even pretending to try and support multiple managers. That's putting it nicely. :) package.[set-name] from profiles is a potential, although that doesn't work perfectly for overlays (which typically get their profile from the master, thus precluding the overlay from injecting a node into the set); could come up with something though. ~harring

Replies