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
Message-Id: 201006101919.04485.reavertm@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature by "Michał Górny"
1 On Thursday 10 of June 2010 15:42:38 Michał Górny wrote:
2 > Hello,
3 >
4 > First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving
5 > Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some
6 > standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs to
7 > use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.
8 >
9 > The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide
10 > package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific
11 > 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such file
12 > could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like to see
13 > such a non-standard file commited to gx86.
14 >
15 > On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from
16 > the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1].
17 > This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild
18 > after the xorg-server ABI change.
19 >
20 > Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository-
21 > -specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage
22 > configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild
23 > sets.
24 >
25 > This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions
26 > for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but
27 > preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it.
28 >
29 > What I would like to see in the PMS is:
30 > 1) a definition of a 'set',
31 > 2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes
32 > them using specific classes but portable names would be much better),
33 > 3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file.
34 >
35 > In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets'
36 > into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from
37 > using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to
38 > reference them.
39 >
40 > [1] http://tnij.org/g6rl
41
42 Please take a look at https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488
43
44 It contains Zac's PROPERTES=set proposition with sets syntax fitting current
45 atom syntax (like metapackages just with a bit different behaviour). By
46 definition It supports USE flags and I believe it's also simpler to implement.
47
48 --
49 regards
50 MM