Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-pms
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-pms@g.o
From: Michał Górny <gentoo@...>
Subject: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200
Hello,

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.

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.

On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from
the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1].
This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild
after the xorg-server ABI change.

Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository-
-specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage
configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild
sets.

This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions
for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but
preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it.

What I would like to see in the PMS is:
1) a definition of a 'set',
2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes
them using specific classes but portable names would be much better),
3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file.

In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets'
into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from
using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to
reference them.

[1] http://tnij.org/g6rl

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@...>
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
-- Maciej Mrozowski
Re: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
why is '@' allowed in use flags
Next by thread:
Re: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
Previous by date:
Re: why is '@' allowed in use flags
Next by date:
Re: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature


Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.