Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:48:15
Message-Id: a3c7bab1-5a8d-9649-b79f-2cd84d012ff1@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds by "William L. Thomson Jr."
1 On 07/07/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
2 > I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of
3 > sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a
4 > package set in a profile. Or at least I do not think you can. I have
5 > looked into it a bit and does not seem like it is possible.
6 >
7 > I know I can create a meta ebuild and use it like a package set. I
8 > think it would be useful to have package sets be able to be used in a
9 > profile like meta ebuilds. It would likely reduce the need or use of
10 > meta packages. Not sure if there is any benefit to that approach over a
11 > set.
12 >
13 > I think sets have benefits over meta packages. This was the most
14 > comprehensive document on sets, benefits, uses, etc. Other than the
15 > general docs on the wiki.
16 > https://makuro.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/intro-to-portage-sets/
17 >
18 > I would really like to be able to use package sets in profiles. I
19 > think of use and benefit to others as well.
20 >
21
22 There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that you
23 are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in full
24 dependency syntax. This means you can specify versions, USE flag
25 dependencies, make packages dependent on USE flags, etc. A package set
26 is just a list of packages (potentially constrained by version. TTBOMK,
27 there is no inclusion of any USE flag functionality in sets.
28 Additionally, let's say you have a more complicated dependency like || (
29 A B ), I don't think there is a way to describe that in a package set
30 at all.
31
32 I'm not sure I see the merit in pushing for package sets in the bulk of
33 cases for this reason. Maybe there is some scenario where package sets
34 are a better option, but you haven't enumerated what that might be (and
35 I'm not really interested in brainstorming until I come up with one, so
36 I'll wait for one frmo someone else)
37
38 Of course, my sets knowledge is a little limited compared to some
39 people, so if something I've said about package sets is incorrect,
40 please feel free to correct it.
41
42 --
43 NP-Hardass

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>