1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of |
4 |
> package sets (much like portage handles currently). |
5 |
|
6 |
I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds of |
7 |
repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be code... |
8 |
|
9 |
> > dev-monkey/howler |
10 |
> > dev-monkey/spider |
11 |
> > >=dev-monkey/spanky-2.0 |
12 |
> > dev-monkey/squirrel |
13 |
> |
14 |
> We'd either want to add || ( ) here, or somehow explicitly specify |
15 |
> that this is a one-of set. |
16 |
|
17 |
No, that's something that's determined by how the set's used, not by |
18 |
what's in the set. There's no such thing as a "one-of" set; a set is |
19 |
just a list of package dep specs. |
20 |
|
21 |
> > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, |
22 |
> > wikis and web 2.0. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> And introduces another dedicated file format the PM has to implement |
25 |
> from scratch. |
26 |
|
27 |
It's a simple text file. It takes fewer lines of code to parse it |
28 |
from scratch than it does to get the results out of an XML parser. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |