Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:19:16
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature by "Michał Górny"
On Thursday 10 of June 2010 15:42:38 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, > > 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. > > 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. > > On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from > the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1]. > This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild > after the xorg-server ABI change. > > Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository- > -specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage > configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild > sets. > > This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions > for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but > preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it. > > What I would like to see in the PMS is: > 1) a definition of a 'set', > 2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes > them using specific classes but portable names would be much better), > 3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file. > > 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. > > [1]
Please take a look at It contains Zac's PROPERTES=set proposition with sets syntax fitting current atom syntax (like metapackages just with a bit different behaviour). By definition It supports USE flags and I believe it's also simpler to implement. -- regards MM