Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:32:59
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans by Duncan <>
2 Hash: SHA1
4 Duncan wrote:
5 > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 4914E580.5010502@g.o,
6 > excerpted below, on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:04:00 -0800:
7 >
8 >> I haven't talked to [the kde project] about [hard-masking all portage
9 > versions with set support] but AFAIK it entirely possible to use
10 >> kde4 without package sets since the meta-ebuilds are available.
11 >
12 > Hmm... I followed the kde4 guide, which talks about sets, and was under
13 > the impression they either weren't even doing the metapackages, with sets
14 > supplanting them, of if they were, they were using set dependencies, thus
15 > required sets.
17 There is no such thing as "set dependencies" yet. It would require a
18 new EAPI. I'm not sure that "set dependencies" are such a good idea,
19 mainly because of the way that users are allowed to subtract atoms
20 from sets. In practice, it's somewhat like package.provided, so a
21 "set dependency" wouldn't actually guarantee that all the intended
22 atoms from that set are installed.
24 > A quick look demonstrates that impression was wrong, however. I'd never
25 > even checked to see if the meta-ebuilds were actually there!
26 >
27 > So... it seems the ebuilds are there. Never-the-less, for folks who have
28 > followed the kde4 guide, sets will be (almost) a must, since that's what
29 > it talks about using, so that's probably what folks who read the guide
30 > /did/ use. I know it's what I used.[1]
31 >
32 > Regardless, I'd definitely touch base with them on it. At minimum, the
33 > upgrade guide will need either changed or taken down, if set support goes
34 > back hard-masked. I doubt they'll be very happy about it, but if it
35 > needs to happen, well...
37 The worst case is that they'll have to unmask portage-2.2 if they
38 want to use sets instead of meta-ebuilds.
40 > [1] FWIW, I have kde-4.1.2 merged, but consider it still broken and well
41 > short of what I'd find actually workable for daily use. There's just too
42 > many bits and pieces that don't work, and won't work until at least
43 > 4.2.0, possibly 4.3.0 the way things are going.
45 I tried kde-4.1.2, using the kde-meta ebuild, when they first put it
46 in the tree. I wasn't comfortable with it so I use kde-3.5.x still.
48 - --
49 Thanks,
50 Zac
52 Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
56 =Uh78
57 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----