1 |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +0000 |
5 |
>>> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an |
8 |
>>>> associated category atoms? |
9 |
>>> Sets /are/ still dependency specifications, in that reading, just like |
10 |
>>> || ( ) groups are dependency specifications, and lists of atoms are dependency specifications. |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> Hence, this is an example of in my mind why "atom" is a *better* descriptor than "dependency specification" |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Because it rules out sets and all the other shenanigans. |
15 |
>> However, in this case why would we want to rule out sets, "and all the |
16 |
>> other shenanigans?" We've already established that a single stable |
17 |
>> request bug can apply to multiple package-versions, so why not allow |
18 |
>> full dependency specifications? If there is a set that describes what |
19 |
>> needs to be stabilized in an atomic operation, then what is the value |
20 |
>> in breaking it down into a million separate =-only atoms? |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> If the process becomes further aided by automated tools then using the |
23 |
>> same dependency specifications as PMS/etc would allow the same code to |
24 |
>> be used to identify candidate PVs to stabilize. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
>> Of course in the most typical case you're stabilizing exactly one PV, |
27 |
>> but I'm not sure we need to limit the syntax simply because that is |
28 |
>> all that is required in the most common case. |
29 |
>> |
30 |
> I don't think we're writing new tools to do this, we're simply using the |
31 |
> existing ones better. So, a list of explicit ebuilds by |
32 |
> Category/Package-Version is what's desired (I believe). But I'll defer |
33 |
> to kensington/ago who are the ones really using this system in anger ... |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
Even if you don't write new tools, I don't see how sets would cause a |
37 |
problem. A set is just a list of dependency specifications, which is |
38 |
what we're otherwise storing. There is no rule against putting 100 |
39 |
specific package versions in either. If you have a set that describes |
40 |
something like a KDE stabilization I'd think that this would be |
41 |
preferable to listing all the KDE packages in the box. |
42 |
|
43 |
But, if somebody can see a problem this would cause I'm all ears. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Rich |