| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 08/14/2013 09:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Using the conventional view of what a "set" is, the point is to |
| 7 |
>> allow you to mask, say, kde7 using a single line, and then define |
| 8 |
>> what kde7 is using a set. Then the user can unmask kde7 without |
| 9 |
>> having to copy a big, potentially changing list of packages out of |
| 10 |
>> package.mask. |
| 11 |
> That is the first interesting paragraph in this thread, thanks for |
| 12 |
> bringing it up. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> sidenote: see `emerge --list-sets` for inspirations, esp. plug-ins |
| 15 |
> like smart-live-rebuild. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
A major reason that I kept portage-2.2 masked for so long was to avoid |
| 18 |
misuse of sets for rebuilds (like @x11-module-rebuild and |
| 19 |
@preserved-rebuild). Since slot-operator and sub-slots are available |
| 20 |
in EAPI 5, the danger of this form of abuse has lessened. I think that |
| 21 |
in the long run it would be best if we replaced the smart-live-rebuild |
| 22 |
set with an EAPI-based solution [1]. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182028 |
Archives