| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:00:43 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:54:44 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds |
| 7 |
> > > of repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be |
| 8 |
> > > code... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Simple things like getting a list of packages which own a particular |
| 11 |
> > file (for rebuilds) or grepping a variable are useful to users. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That's something done by sets as provided by the package mangler, not |
| 14 |
> something done by repository-specified sets. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So we should provide separate copies of the same sets for each package |
| 17 |
mangler? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > For example, the x11 overlay provides a set to rebuild the xorg |
| 20 |
> > server modules after an update. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> That's just a list of package specs. The user then says "only the ones |
| 23 |
> of these that I have installed" by the way the set is used. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, I think a simple specification saying 'all installed packages |
| 26 |
which install to /usr/lib/foo' is much simpler to write and maintain |
| 27 |
than a random number of package names. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives