| 1 |
On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 21:42:35 Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 |
| Now that portage-2.2 is in ~arch, we should now be able to add sets to |
| 3 |
| the tree. |
| 4 |
| |
| 5 |
| How should we go about doing this? In some overlays, the repository root |
| 6 |
| has sets/{foo,bar,etc} and sets.conf which might look like this: |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| [gentoo sets] |
| 9 |
| class = portage.sets.files.StaticFileSet |
| 10 |
| multiset = true |
| 11 |
| directory = ${repository:gentoo}/sets/ |
| 12 |
| world-candidate = True |
| 13 |
| |
| 14 |
| It might be useful to have a standard header for each set: |
| 15 |
| |
| 16 |
| # Maintainer: foo@×××××××.com |
| 17 |
| # Description: The complete set of all Foo packages |
| 18 |
| |
| 19 |
| Should everyone be free to add sets at will, or should each addition be |
| 20 |
| discussed first, similar to adding new global USE flags? |
| 21 |
| |
| 22 |
| Anything else to consider? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Discussion about current portage sets was sure to get hot. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I strongly disagree with adding current portage sets to gentoo-x86. |
| 27 |
Not because they're not PMS compliant (which is a reason alone) but because they can be |
| 28 |
considered interim solution. |
| 29 |
Please refer to Zac's email on why portage-2.2_ was kept masked for that long. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
For live rebuilds, there's already proposal: |
| 32 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
For proper 'metapackage' replacement (USE flags support, etc), actually there's also some |
| 35 |
idea (Zac's 'PROPERTIES=set'): |
| 36 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182028 |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
In my opinion, we need to _have_ proper sets before we include them in gentoo-x86. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
regards |
| 41 |
MM |
Archives