Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/09/2017 06:53 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:42:46 -0700 > Daniel Campbell wrote: > >>> - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or >>> anything beyond cat/pkg. >> This would break some set behavior, at least in Portage.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > > Yeah, but it's not going to happen without an EAPI/PMS extension. > There needs to be a standard way for the package manager to check if > there has been an upstream change for a given package since the last > time it was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:42:46 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > > - Sets used in profiles cannot have use expansion, versions or > > anything beyond cat/pkg. > This would break some set behavior, at least in Portage. Specifying a > single version (or better, a slot) in a set is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/08/2017 06:23 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 01:10:11 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 >> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 >>> Ciaran

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:39 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:30:10 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. >> wrote: >> > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 >> > Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:30:10 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 > > Zac Medico wrote: > > > >> For live-rebuild, it would be > >> much nicer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> For live-rebuild, it would be >> much nicer to have a framework that automatically triggers rebuilds >> when upstream changes are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 01:10:11 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 8

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:58:13 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > The two ways are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > The two ways are not the same, and there is a reason sets exist in > > the first place. People seem to be over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." 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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:35:34 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > Sets are also used for package rebuilds, like x11-module-rebuild, > > live-rebuild, and others. > > Usually there are better ways

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:24:46 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > I don't see why a package manager couldn't offer the same > functionality for a meta package. As was pointed out the set behavior > for unmerging isn't always desirable. Your missing that sets maybe made by the user,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Sets are also used for package rebuilds, like x11-module-rebuild, > live-rebuild, and others. Usually there are better ways to trigger rebuilds. For example, slot operator dependencies for rebuilds due to subslot

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other >> direction and just have packages instead of sets? > > The blog

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:34:55 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other > direction and just have packages instead of sets? The blog entry I provided a link to I think made the best case example of usage of sets and their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Bug #272488[0] proposed a PROPERTIES="set" feature to combine the power > of sets with the flexibility of ebuilds. > > 1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 > What do sets get us that packages do not?

[gentoo-dev] Re: Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/08/2017 02:48 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 07/07/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of >> sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a >> package set in a profile. Or at least I do not think