| 1 |
Zac Medico posted on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:31:24 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 12/17/2012 09:59 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> [1] I long ago filed a bug suggesting a new world-sets line for |
| 6 |
>> depclean, |
| 7 |
>> but I expect it'll be resolved/fixed about the time sets support |
| 8 |
>> finally gets unmasked to ~arch, the status of which looks about like |
| 9 |
>> the tree's git conversion status... in practice, target "bluesky". I |
| 10 |
>> guess these are gentoo's Duke Nukem' Forever projects. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Fixed now: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298298 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It was a lot easier than the git conversion. ;-p |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Hurray! =:^) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
FWIW, I guess I wasn't as clear in my post as I was in my head, but what |
| 21 |
I /intended/ to compare to the git conversion was sets support in at |
| 22 |
least ~arch-unmasked portage. I've been eagerly awaiting both the git |
| 23 |
tree conversion and sets support that ordinary users (at least in ~arch) |
| 24 |
can use without unmasking, but both are complicated as much by the |
| 25 |
political issues as the technical ones, so it's not as simple as just |
| 26 |
hammering down on the technical issues and getting it done; the political |
| 27 |
issues simply take /time/. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This particular bug was taking some time too, but I wasn't worried about |
| 30 |
it since I knew I was using a masked portage and it was n/a everywhere |
| 31 |
else. I figured it'd be fixed eventually, as I said, about the time sets |
| 32 |
support got unmasked to ~arch. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But with luck, that's about to happen too, and I was right. Should I be |
| 35 |
on the lookout for flying pigs too? =:^) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Seriously, from your perspective, what /is/ the status on ~arch sets |
| 38 |
support? I know I've not had any technical issues in that regard in |
| 39 |
/ages/, but I believe the original political problem was that portage's |
| 40 |
implementation of sets differed from that of paludis, and the idea was to |
| 41 |
standardize on something that could be used by both, possibly covered by |
| 42 |
PMS, so sets could be distributed in the tree, etc. And not being on the |
| 43 |
PMS list and not having seen anything on it here, I'm not sure if there |
| 44 |
has been any movement at all in that regard or not. And if not, is it |
| 45 |
even practical to thing it could still happen? And if standardization |
| 46 |
isn't practical, will the feature eventually be introduced, or dropped, |
| 47 |
and if the plan is still to introduce it, is it something you believe you |
| 48 |
can do right away as a portage update, or do you believe you need council |
| 49 |
blessing for it, or? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I guess if you're bothering to commit depclean summary changes to support |
| 52 |
sets, as you just did, the feature isn't on the cutting block yet, which |
| 53 |
is a good sign, but I'd still like to be able to share sets with people |
| 54 |
without worrying about explaining the concept and that support for it is |
| 55 |
available but is still masked, every time. Is that something that I can |
| 56 |
realistically expect to be able to do by say, the end of 2013, or not? |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
As the slogan goes, "Enquiring minds want to know!" =:^) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 62 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 63 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives