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
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
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

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

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.


Best regards,
Michał Górny

signature.asc (PGP signature)
Re: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
-- Maciej Mrozowski
Re: (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
-- Ciaran McCreesh
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.