On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:51:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200
> Michał Górny <gentoo@...> 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@...>