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: [email protected]
| # 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
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
