1 |
On Thursday 10 of June 2010 15:42:38 Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Hello, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving |
5 |
> Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some |
6 |
> standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs to |
7 |
> use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide |
10 |
> package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific |
11 |
> 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such file |
12 |
> could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like to see |
13 |
> such a non-standard file commited to gx86. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from |
16 |
> the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1]. |
17 |
> This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild |
18 |
> after the xorg-server ABI change. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository- |
21 |
> -specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage |
22 |
> configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild |
23 |
> sets. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions |
26 |
> for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but |
27 |
> preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> What I would like to see in the PMS is: |
30 |
> 1) a definition of a 'set', |
31 |
> 2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes |
32 |
> them using specific classes but portable names would be much better), |
33 |
> 3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets' |
36 |
> into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from |
37 |
> using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to |
38 |
> reference them. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> [1] http://tnij.org/g6rl |
41 |
|
42 |
Please take a look at https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 |
43 |
|
44 |
It contains Zac's PROPERTES=set proposition with sets syntax fitting current |
45 |
atom syntax (like metapackages just with a bit different behaviour). By |
46 |
definition It supports USE flags and I believe it's also simpler to implement. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
regards |
50 |
MM |