| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Monday 29 September 2008 01:37:03 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> Why the need for multiple solutions at all? PROPERTIES=set is too weird |
| 8 |
>>>> and involves too much nonsensical behaviour to be useful. |
| 9 |
>>> I don't see the PROPERTIES=set approach as being worse than any |
| 10 |
>>> other approach for package set definition. It has lots of advantages |
| 11 |
>>> because of the way that it fits into the existing ebuild framework |
| 12 |
>>> like virtual ebuilds do [1], allowing it to leverage all of the |
| 13 |
>>> existing features of the framework (including package.use) and also |
| 14 |
>>> allowing it to leverage the tools that have been designed to work |
| 15 |
>>> with the framework. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0037.html |
| 18 |
>> I really don't see the advantages of fitting 'into the existing ebuild |
| 19 |
>> framework like virtual ebuilds do'. Can you name any real advantages to it? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> This idea initially came up when Jorge (jmbsvicetto) mentioned that |
| 22 |
> he had used a package set to replace a meta-ebuild in the |
| 23 |
> desktop-effects overlay, and then users complained that the set did |
| 24 |
> not supporting the USE conditionals that the previous meta-ebuild |
| 25 |
> had supported. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
For those interested, the complaints were about this meta-ebuild |
| 28 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=x11-wm/compiz-fusion/compiz-fusion-0.7.8.ebuild;h=91783ea46143daa90f8102936e170ff43059491b;hb=master |
| 29 |
that I replaced with the |
| 30 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=sets/compiz-fusion-complete;h=5281e30f5a4677f5f0ef882db9ff187883d569ea;hb=master |
| 31 |
and |
| 32 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=sets/compiz-fusion;h=8a7869e77ea72f54f9bea6e1b214c124c7025934;hb=master |
| 33 |
sets. |
| 34 |
Optional deps on the set would allow the user to select whether to |
| 35 |
install the gnome or kde backends and to install the unsupported plugins |
| 36 |
or not. |
| 37 |
Another alternative in this case, is to use the set operators so that I |
| 38 |
have a single set for all packages and tell the user to create a set |
| 39 |
with the packages he doesn't want to install from the overlay and run |
| 40 |
emerge @compiz-fusion-@compiz-fusion-unwanted. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> Perhaps we can support USE conditionals in sets, but this also seems |
| 43 |
> to mean that we will need a package.use analog that applies to |
| 44 |
> package sets. Assuming that we'll need a package.use analog, we |
| 45 |
> might view the act of replacing meta-packages with sets as a sort of |
| 46 |
> "throwing the baby out with the bath water" scenario in sense that |
| 47 |
> meta-packages have lots of useful features and the only reason to |
| 48 |
> migrate them to sets would be take advantage of the unique features |
| 49 |
> which sets have to offer. So, rather than force a complete |
| 50 |
> migration, we may want to consider integrating meta-packages into |
| 51 |
> the sets framework. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Can package.use syntax be extended to allow set entries? |
| 54 |
@compiz-fusion -gnome kde kde4 |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
- -- |
| 57 |
Regards, |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 60 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE |
| 61 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 62 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 63 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjhr3sACgkQcAWygvVEyAIs7QCfVZUPK5tV3PxTRPDz18C97Y1d |
| 66 |
xFQAn2qNMzPyDUhr0RJDsoWg45MWkJEJ |
| 67 |
=TYZC |
| 68 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives