On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of
> package sets (much like portage handles currently).

I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds of
repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be code...

> >     dev-monkey/howler
> >     dev-monkey/spider
> >     >=dev-monkey/spanky-2.0
> >     dev-monkey/squirrel
> 
> We'd either want to add || ( ) here, or somehow explicitly specify
> that this is a one-of set.

No, that's something that's determined by how the set's used, not by
what's in the set. There's no such thing as a "one-of" set; a set is
just a list of package dep specs.

> > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML,
> > wikis and web 2.0.
> 
> And introduces another dedicated file format the PM has to implement
> from scratch.

It's a simple text file. It takes fewer lines of code to parse it
from scratch than it does to get the results out of an XML parser.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh