Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:51:15
Message-Id: 20100610145105.45d4469d@snowcone
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature by "Michał Górny"
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200
Michał Górny <gentoo@××××××××××.pl> wrote:
> First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving > Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some > standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs > to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.
This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS.
> The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide > package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific > 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such > file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like > to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86.
The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases. You'll need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it.
> In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets' > into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from > using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to > reference them.
As soon as you introduce them, people will want to use sets in profiles/ files. -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature "Michał Górny" <gentoo@××××××××××.pl>