| 1 |
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <gentoo@××××××××××.pl> wrote: |
| 3 |
> First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving |
| 4 |
> Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some |
| 5 |
> standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs |
| 6 |
> to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide |
| 11 |
> package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific |
| 12 |
> 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such |
| 13 |
> file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like |
| 14 |
> to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be |
| 17 |
specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including |
| 18 |
code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases. You'll |
| 19 |
need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that |
| 20 |
nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets' |
| 23 |
> into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from |
| 24 |
> using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to |
| 25 |
> reference them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As soon as you introduce them, people will want to use sets in |
| 28 |
profiles/ files. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives