On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:42:57PM +0200, aye wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:59:11AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Your setup here could be better solved with portage recognizing groups
> > of packages - both predefined groups 'system' and custom groups.
> > 
> > Eg you can replace everything with one line:
> > package-group/system low_c_flags
> > 
> > And that would compile everything portage considers as system with the
> > environment from low_c_flags.
> > 
> yep - it's also good idea, however i'd still have to declare 'system'
> class somewhere. the one used in profile isn't good for me (for example
> x11 is in profile), but you've ofcourse right - it would look nicer if i
> had just package-group/system and profile, which satisfy me.
Somebody else was ahead of us on it, but I don't know how much progress
was made on it:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0021.html

Coredumb notes that USE flags for sets could prove a problem, and
unfortunately the same problem would effect this package.env proposal.
Namely, if you have two entries:
virtual-set/foo env1
virtual-set/bar env2
some-cat/foo env3

some-cat/foo is present is both sets.
If some-cat/foo is being merged directly, the settings from the sets
will be totally ignored - even if we could detect them, which one would
we use? There are a couple of other similar problem cases with sets and
any of the portage settings that might be applied per-package :-(.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85