Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree

[Patrick Lauer]

On 08/14/2013 11:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:50:36 +0800
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
>> On 08/14/2013 11:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:41:03 +0800
>>> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
>>>> On 08/14/2013 10:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:07:32 +0400
>>>>> Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:
>>>>>> I am all for the standarts, but as we did not brought sets to PMS
>>>>>> yet(when we updated it for EAPI changes), my question is: 'why?'.
>>>>>> It is one of the long-standing feature of quite experimental
>>>>>> 2.2_alpha branch, that should finally come to release(Thanks to
>>>>>> portage team, by the way :-)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why it was not added as a part of the PMS? Some implementation
>>>>>> flaws? Or maybe, architecture problems?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the Portage format involves executing arbitrary Python
>>>>> code that can depend in arbitrary ways upon undocumented Portage
>>>>> internals that can change between versions.
>>>>>
>>>> You keep repeating that.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't make it more true.
>>>
>>> It's not a question of "more true", it simply is true. Look at the
>>> class line.
>>
>> Looking at, for example, kde overlay:
>> https://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde.git;a=tree;f=sets;h=0e7389b34215915696d99fdb19e03c6d5ce1902f;hb=HEAD
>>
>> All the sets I've had a look at are a list of package atoms.
>>
>> No python code involved. None of your conspiracy theories supported.
>> (Maybe it'd be easier to discuss this if there were a design document
>> for it, but ain't no one got time for dat)
>>
>> So ... what was your claim again?
>
> Uhm. Look at the class line.
>
> https://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde.git;a=blob;f=sets.conf;h=1f4c4263f48e5360606c1acc97fbab64b03541b7;hb=HEAD
>

... a static identifier.

I would usually call that a constant. Now I get bored with your
trolling. Goodbye.