Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 01:10:11 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400
> > > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> > > > The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist
> > > > in the first place. People seem to be over looking that fact. I
> > > > did not add sets. They are not new.  I am simply trying to
> > > > expand their use.
> > >
> > > Sets exist because people keep saying "let's have sets!" without
> > > agreeing on what sets actually are or how they are to be used.
> >
> > Do they need to agree? Isn't Gentoo about choice? Maybe your use of
> > sets is different from mine. Is that not acceptable to have
> > choice?
>
> Well yes, they do need to agree, because otherwise when two different
> developers put sets in a profile expecting different effects, then at
> least two developers are going to end up confused, disappointed, and
> quite probably breaking user systems.

Valid points, so basically need a set of guidelines or rules for sets
used in profiles. Which should not be that complex, as usage is minimal.
Offhand, likely could be more;

- Sets used in profiles are "lists of packages" for users to
  emerge/re-emerge, and as such should be minimal list only. Similar to
  the contents of a profile/packages, less the * symbol.

 - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or anything
   beyond cat/pkg.

- Sets should not have the same file listed, in that case inherit the
  other set if using overlapping packages or split into smaller

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.