On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 01:10:11 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 > > > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > > > > The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist > > > > in the first place. People seem to be over looking that fact. I > > > > did not add sets. They are not new. I am simply trying to > > > > expand their use. > > > > > > Sets exist because people keep saying "let's have sets!" without > > > agreeing on what sets actually are or how they are to be used. > > > > Do they need to agree? Isn't Gentoo about choice? Maybe your use of > > sets is different from mine. Is that not acceptable to have > > choice? > > Well yes, they do need to agree, because otherwise when two different > developers put sets in a profile expecting different effects, then at > least two developers are going to end up confused, disappointed, and > quite probably breaking user systems. Valid points, so basically need a set of guidelines or rules for sets used in profiles. Which should not be that complex, as usage is minimal. Offhand, likely could be more; - Sets used in profiles are "lists of packages" for users to emerge/re-emerge, and as such should be minimal list only. Similar to the contents of a profile/packages, less the * symbol. - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or anything beyond cat/pkg. - Sets should not have the same file listed, in that case inherit the other set if using overlapping packages or split into smaller -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpPXW60ZeBxe.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
