| 1 |
On 07/08/2017 06:23 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 01:10:11 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 |
| 6 |
>> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 |
| 8 |
>>> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 |
| 10 |
>>>> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 11 |
>>>>> The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist |
| 12 |
>>>>> in the first place. People seem to be over looking that fact. I |
| 13 |
>>>>> did not add sets. They are not new. I am simply trying to |
| 14 |
>>>>> expand their use. |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> Sets exist because people keep saying "let's have sets!" without |
| 17 |
>>>> agreeing on what sets actually are or how they are to be used. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> Do they need to agree? Isn't Gentoo about choice? Maybe your use of |
| 20 |
>>> sets is different from mine. Is that not acceptable to have |
| 21 |
>>> choice? |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Well yes, they do need to agree, because otherwise when two different |
| 24 |
>> developers put sets in a profile expecting different effects, then at |
| 25 |
>> least two developers are going to end up confused, disappointed, and |
| 26 |
>> quite probably breaking user systems. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Valid points, so basically need a set of guidelines or rules for sets |
| 29 |
> used in profiles. Which should not be that complex, as usage is minimal. |
| 30 |
> Offhand, likely could be more; |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> - Sets used in profiles are "lists of packages" for users to |
| 33 |
> emerge/re-emerge, and as such should be minimal list only. Similar to |
| 34 |
> the contents of a profile/packages, less the * symbol. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or anything |
| 37 |
> beyond cat/pkg. |
| 38 |
This would break some set behavior, at least in Portage. Specifying a |
| 39 |
single version (or better, a slot) in a set is less work than adding |
| 40 |
lines to p.mask *and* the set file(s), and p.mask doesn't appear to |
| 41 |
support "!=cat/pkg-1.0" syntax to mimic the same functionality achieved |
| 42 |
by a versioned atom in a set. It also makes sense to put packages you |
| 43 |
want in a set instead of a mask. ">=" or "<=" may be adequate if you |
| 44 |
only want one slot or version installed, but the entire point of slots |
| 45 |
is to allow multiple versions to be installed simultaneously. Versioned |
| 46 |
package names in sets achieve this. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> - Sets should not have the same file listed, in that case inherit the |
| 50 |
> other set if using overlapping packages or split into smaller |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 56 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 57 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives