[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets in the tree
From:       Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-08-15 23:36:59
Message-ID: 1773649.4UCxbmXIpv () lebrodyl
[Download RAW message or body]


On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 21:42:35 Michael Palimaka wrote:
| Now that portage-2.2 is in ~arch, we should now be able to add sets to 
| the tree.
| 
| How should we go about doing this? In some overlays, the repository root 
| has sets/{foo,bar,etc} and sets.conf which might look like this:
| 
| [gentoo sets]
| class = portage.sets.files.StaticFileSet
| multiset = true
| directory = ${repository:gentoo}/sets/
| world-candidate = True
| 
| It might be useful to have a standard header for each set:
| 
| # Maintainer: foo@example.com
| # Description: The complete set of all Foo packages
| 
| Should everyone be free to add sets at will, or should each addition be 
| discussed first, similar to adding new global USE flags?
| 
| Anything else to consider?

Discussion about current portage sets was sure to get hot.

I strongly disagree with adding current portage sets to gentoo-x86.
Not because they're not PMS compliant (which is a reason alone) but because they can be
considered interim solution.
Please refer to Zac's email on why portage-2.2_ was kept masked for that long.

For live rebuilds, there's already proposal:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488

For proper 'metapackage' replacement (USE flags support, etc), actually there's also some
idea (Zac's 'PROPERTIES=set'):
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182028

In my opinion, we need to _have_ proper sets before we include them in gentoo-x86.

regards
MM
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]