Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Michał Górny" <gentoo@××××××××××.pl>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:19:17
Message-Id: 20100610161830.0cfdcbb5@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:51:05 +0100
2 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200
5 > Michał Górny <gentoo@××××××××××.pl> wrote:
6 > > First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving
7 > > Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some
8 > > standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs
9 > > to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.
10 >
11 > This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS.
12
13 Yep, I was trying to get some feedback first to see if it's even worth
14 trying.
15
16 > > The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide
17 > > package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific
18 > > 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such
19 > > file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like
20 > > to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86.
21 >
22 > The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be
23 > specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including
24 > code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases.
25 > You'll need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that
26 > nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it.
27
28 Zac seems pretty open to replace the whole 'class' idea with some
29 pre-defined 'types'. But I'd personally like to have the specs first
30 instead of building them on a ready code.
31
32 --
33 Best regards,
34 Michał Górny
35
36 <http://mgorny.alt.pl>
37 <xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru>

Attachments

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