1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:43:41 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of |
7 |
> > package sets (much like portage handles currently). |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds of |
10 |
> repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be code... |
11 |
|
12 |
Simple things like getting a list of packages which own a particular |
13 |
file (for rebuilds) or grepping a variable are useful to users. |
14 |
For example, the x11 overlay provides a set to rebuild the xorg server |
15 |
modules after an update. |
16 |
|
17 |
> > We'd either want to add || ( ) here, or somehow explicitly specify |
18 |
> > that this is a one-of set. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> No, that's something that's determined by how the set's used, not by |
21 |
> what's in the set. There's no such thing as a "one-of" set; a set is |
22 |
> just a list of package dep specs. |
23 |
|
24 |
Hm, true. I guess noone will want to merge 'a random package matching |
25 |
a tag' :P. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Best regards, |
29 |
Michał Górny |