Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Michał Górny" <gentoo@××××××××××.pl>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:19:17
Message-Id: 20100610161830.0cfdcbb5@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature by Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:51:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200 > Michał Górny <gentoo@××××××××××.pl> wrote: > > First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving > > Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some > > standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs > > to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files. > > This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS.
Yep, I was trying to get some feedback first to see if it's even worth trying.
> > The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide > > package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific > > 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such > > file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like > > to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86. > > The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be > specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including > code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases. > You'll need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that > nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it.
Zac seems pretty open to replace the whole 'class' idea with some pre-defined 'types'. But I'd personally like to have the specs first instead of building them on a ready code. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://mgorny.alt.pl> <xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru>

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature