Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:04:47 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> Wouldn't be much easy to try to get sets support approved for the next
> eapi? (eapi6 I think). Once we get the usual problems, we can complain
> but, who knows, maybe (as it's already implemented in a PM) it doesn't
> take so long to get approved (or maybe I am being too optimistic :( )

Of course. All you have to do is propose a sane format for them -- this
has been the blocker the last few times this issue has come up.

The big question the Council will probably want answered is whether or
not sets are allowed in package.mask and the like. If the answer is no,
you're removing a large part of their usefulness. If the answer is yes,
how are you controlling backwards compatibility?

> > (not well maintained: simple patches take months to get applied, and
> > even then often need council interference to be applied. Does not
> > reflect reality: Multiple cases like mandating bash 3.2 that we
> > don't even have in tree anymore, so no compliance testing possible.
>
> Maybe a quick new eapi bump (5.1?) including this and other small
> changes that are quick to implement could help :/

People seem to be opposed to "lots of EAPIs" or "too many new EAPIs".
There's a fairly long delay between them because that's what developers
have been asking for.

> > Not
> > documenting package.mask as a directory for EAPI0 even when that
> > feature existed in portage before the initial release of PMS. Etc.
> > etc.)
> >
>
> I wasn't aware of this issue at all, does it have a bug report
> tracking it? (for knowing its status, why it is being ignored or
> bringing the problem to the council if needed) Please take care that
> not all people are aware of the PMS related issues :)

It's not an issue at all. PMS followed the Portage documentation at the
time (and unless it's changed recently, what the Portage documentation
still says). It's just that Portage reuses code in such a way that
there are accidental undocumented "features" every now and again, and
this is one of them that someone spotted and started using. Directories
for package.mask were introduced as a user config feature, not a tree
feature (read the commit message that added the feature to Portage).

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh