Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 00:10:23
Message-Id: 20170709011011.4e072d7b@snowblower
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds by "William L. Thomson Jr."
1 On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400
2 "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
3 > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100
4 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
5 > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400
6 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
7 > > > The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist in
8 > > > the first place. People seem to be over looking that fact. I did
9 > > > not add sets. They are not new. I am simply trying to expand
10 > > > their use.
11 > >
12 > > Sets exist because people keep saying "let's have sets!" without
13 > > agreeing on what sets actually are or how they are to be used.
14 >
15 > Do they need to agree? Isn't Gentoo about choice? Maybe your use of
16 > sets is different from mine. Is that not acceptable to have choice?
17
18 Well yes, they do need to agree, because otherwise when two different
19 developers put sets in a profile expecting different effects, then at
20 least two developers are going to end up confused, disappointed, and
21 quite probably breaking user systems.
22
23 --
24 Ciaran McCreesh

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>