On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:07:28 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reply on gentoo-portage-dev, _not_ on gentoo-dev, thanks. > > One missing feature in portage is the lack of package sets. Before we > (re)start working on that however I'd like to get some feedback about > what properties/features people would expect from portage package set > support. > Some key questions: > > - should they simply act like aliases for multiple packages? E.g. > should `emerge -C sets/kde` be equivalent to `emerge -C kdepkg1 > kdepkg2 kdepkg3 ...`? Or does the behavior need to be "smarter" in > some ways? > > - what kind of atoms should be supported in sets? Simple and versioned > atoms for sure, but what about complex atoms (use-conditional, any-of, > blockers)? > > - should sets be supported everywhere, or only in selected use cases? > (everywhere would include depstrings for example) > > - what use cases are there for package sets? Other than the > established "system" and "world", and the planned "all" and > "security" sets. > > - how/where should sets be stored/distributed? Forgot one question: - should sets have metadata? (e.g. a description for searching) There hasn't been much feedback yet, so if you want to add anything now is your chance, otherwise I'll implement things the way that works best/is easiest for me, which might be different from what you expect. Marius PS: I also accept off-list replies -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
