On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:43:14 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:38:31 +0100 > James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 > > NP-Hardass <np-hard...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > There is actually a huge functional difference between the two > > > that you are missing here. A meta package defines its > > > dependencies in full dependency syntax. This means you can > > > specify versions, USE flag dependencies, make packages dependent > > > on USE flags, etc. A package set is just a list of packages > > > (potentially constrained by version. TTBOMK, there is no > > > inclusion of any USE flag functionality in sets. Additionally, > > > let's say you have a more complicated dependency like || ( A B > > > ), I don't think there is a way to describe that in a package > > > set at all. > > > > Actually you can specify basic USE dependencies in sets. You can > > also specify SLOTs. For example, this is valid. > > > > media-libs/tiff:3[abi_x86_32,jpeg,zlib,-cxx] > > And this is one of many reasons "sets in profiles" isn't going to > work: we don't really know what most of this stuff means... Just have to avoid using such features if a set is to be used in a profile. Gentoo developers have control over profiles, and ideally these sets as well. Short of some user created ones. Thus most issues of that nature should be easily preventable. My main interest is in being able to use a package set in a profile. While retaining that set on its own for rebuild and other purposes. Someone may want to use said set, but not a given profile using the set. Having sets being usable in profiles gives you the best of both. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpb6BTYnmChX.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
