| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:21:18 -0700 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for |
| 8 |
>> improvements or alternative approaches? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Strikes me as a good way of causing extreme confusion for users... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Perhaps it's not so confusing if the packages continue to behave |
| 13 |
normally in the usual cases, but they are mapped into set space as |
| 14 |
suggested earlier [1]. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Consider sets in package.use, for example. Any specified flags should |
| 17 |
> apply to the entire set. But what about set-property packages? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In order to fit into the ebuild framework, the specified flags would |
| 20 |
only apply to direct dependency atoms. Atoms pulled in by recursion |
| 21 |
into other set-property packages would have the flags applied from |
| 22 |
those respective set-property packages. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Sets and packages aren't the same thing, and shouldn't be treated as if |
| 25 |
> they are. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Packages and virtuals aren't the same thing either, but glep 37 |
| 28 |
virtuals fit quite well into the existing ebuild framework. It seems |
| 29 |
to me that set-property packages will also fit nicely into the |
| 30 |
existing ebuild framework. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[1] |
| 33 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d858a9a516fe3d1996c3809fba56f1db.xml |
| 34 |
- -- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Zac |
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjf7rcACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNlzQCfYrvTNDVTqqZjXgc7rUkfjT6J |
| 41 |
8PMAmgLkC4dcprNL6GnuHzWUzM9zabxk |
| 42 |
=91yT |
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives