Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets

[Robert Bridge]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:37:25 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:31:46 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >>> Can package.use syntax be extended to allow set entries?
> >>> @compiz-fusion -gnome kde kde4
> >> Perhaps, but we need to clarify how that sort of setting will
> >> affect nested sets. For example, if @compiz-fusion contains nested
> >> sets, would those USE settings apply to the nested sets as well?
> >> Will nested sets be allowed to have independent USE settings from
> >> the sets that nest them?
> >
> > Maybe a nested set could inherit the USE flag settings of its
> > parent set unless it has its own entry in package.use.
> >
> > Though what happens if a package is in both sets which have
> > conflicting flags in package.use?  I would say that the nested set
> > has to have priority.  If not, I can easily imagine people getting
> > confused when their USE settings for a set are being applied to all
> > but one or two packages.
>
> It seems to me that the most logical approach would be to do some
> sort of "incremental" stacking, similar to the way that USE flags
> stack in the profiles. Suppose that we have the following settings
> in package.use:
>
>  @kde-meta    foo bar
>  @kdeedu-meta -foo
>
> If the flags are stacked incrementally, analogously to the way that
> they are stacked in profiles, then the above setting would apply the
> "foo" and "bar" flags to all of @kde-meta except for the
> @kdeedu-meta subset which would only have "bar" applied since "foo"
> has been disabled incrementally. Does this approach seem reasonable?

From a lowly users perspective, I would say this is more intuitive. It
fits with the expected policy of the closest flag to the package taking
precedence...

Rob.