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> |