[gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

[Michael Palimaka]

On 07/08/2017 02:48 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of
>> sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a
>> package set in a profile. Or at least I do not think you can. I have
>> looked into it a bit and does not seem like it is possible.
>>
>> I know I can create a meta ebuild and use it like a package set. I
>> think it would be useful to have package sets be able to be used in a
>> profile like meta ebuilds. It would likely reduce the need or use of
>> meta packages. Not sure if there is any benefit to that approach over a
>> set.
>>
>> I think sets have benefits over meta packages. This was the most
>> comprehensive document on sets, benefits, uses, etc. Other than the
>> general docs on the wiki.
>> https://makuro.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/intro-to-portage-sets/
>>
>> I  would really like to be able to use package sets in profiles. I
>> think of use and benefit to others as well.
>>
>
> There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that you
> are missing here.  A meta package defines its dependencies in full
> dependency syntax.  This means you can specify versions, USE flag
> dependencies, make packages dependent on USE flags, etc.  A package set
> is just a list of packages (potentially constrained by version.  TTBOMK,
> there is no inclusion of any USE flag functionality in sets.
> Additionally, let's say you have a more complicated dependency like || (
> A B ),  I don't think there is a way to describe that in a package set
> at all.

Bug #272488[0] proposed a PROPERTIES="set" feature to combine the power
of sets with the flexibility of ebuilds.

1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488