| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other |
| 7 |
>> direction and just have packages instead of sets? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The blog entry I provided a link to I think made the best case example |
| 10 |
> of usage of sets and their benefits. |
| 11 |
> https://makuro.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/intro-to-portage-sets/ |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The biggest advantage is ability to re-emerge all without additional |
| 14 |
> steps or arguments. Simple emerge @my_set just like emerge world, etc. |
| 15 |
> Even more useful you can remove a set directly, without depclean. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I don't see why a package manager couldn't offer the same |
| 18 |
functionality for a meta package. As was pointed out the set behavior |
| 19 |
for unmerging isn't always desirable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> world and system are sets we all have. Not sure about PMS. It is |
| 23 |
> something portage has supported for some time. You likely have many |
| 24 |
> sets already on your system |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Certainly. You just can't depend on them and so on without having |
| 27 |
them in PMS, because portage isn't the only package manager we |
| 28 |
"support." |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It just strikes me that we're probably better off picking one way of |
| 31 |
doing this and putting lots of support behind it, versus having two |
| 32 |
ways of doing this and some features work with one but not the other. |
| 33 |
Of the two meta packages seem like they're the most generic. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives