On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:00:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:54:44 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > > 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...
> > 
> > Simple things like getting a list of packages which own a particular
> > file (for rebuilds) or grepping a variable are useful to users.
> 
> That's something done by sets as provided by the package mangler, not
> something done by repository-specified sets.

So we should provide separate copies of the same sets for each package
mangler?

> > For example, the x11 overlay provides a set to rebuild the xorg
> > server modules after an update.
> 
> That's just a list of package specs. The user then says "only the ones
> of these that I have installed" by the way the set is used.

Well, I think a simple specification saying 'all installed packages
which install to /usr/lib/foo' is much simpler to write and maintain
than a random number of package names.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny