From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kk3P4-0007Rt-DU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:02:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 428AEE03DC; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.190]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A56E03DC for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so641955nfi.26 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=1C2l6EGc9dH7uj6IFluGN2xXzYhi4yln18JB+zMkYRU=; b=KLTf3gbnspW8lPDe/fDUCRnvB+23EsIaLgXY7583FSpXKyd6wSGTve1hj05Iel9QAP v9KLQZ8V5Y5iQfZhJ1Hr1KWqhnj5w4mmFe7DUy5AbXAmp+VDtgFmWLnPAln9QzxCfdAZ +Ls5ihsmlX2ATXAF/MwlNbqIYJXsIxtIELEWU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=ON7i25Qe5Kzq3cGCd3dYgqk2smd+aYDeiRLuHuaS4dk8XPdkUYbJ70jYYtsi6oTEG8 U4mK2qIJHsncM2pUSjplxngU5mKfcvK2/9+lx/Sqlog9YRC9CoZw3s96INleMnSH4CaO 8jamYRv8MBStnCT7DF6Z2Rjm4noxYUAzAw7OU= Received: by 10.210.109.10 with SMTP id h10mr5133133ebc.145.1222635723507; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6sm2649903gve.2.2008.09.28.14.02.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:01:51 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets Message-ID: <20080928220151.33656aca@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <48DFEEB8.5040608@gentoo.org> References: <48DECDFE.7010606@gentoo.org> <20080928213219.66a30341@snowmobile> <48DFEEB8.5040608@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/8Tu=Xzg9Ib4c2wN3CBAjws8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 827e1958-6d69-46d4-b552-2f2df7970430 X-Archives-Hash: 00a666fd5b6ad8f32dcac9c7d3f194b8 --Sig_/8Tu=Xzg9Ib4c2wN3CBAjws8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:53:12 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > >> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for > >> improvements or alternative approaches? > >=20 > > Strikes me as a good way of causing extreme confusion for users... >=20 > Perhaps it's not so confusing if the packages continue to behave > normally in the usual cases, but they are mapped into set space as > suggested earlier [1]. Then why not just make the things sets? Come up with a standard way of distributing sets as part of a repository, and let future EAPIs include deps upon sets. > > Consider sets in package.use, for example. Any specified flags > > should apply to the entire set. But what about set-property > > packages? >=20 > In order to fit into the ebuild framework, the specified flags would > only apply to direct dependency atoms. Atoms pulled in by recursion > into other set-property packages would have the flags applied from > those respective set-property packages. Right, so you'd get the bizarre case that, given: cat/foo one cat/bar two cat/baz three The one flag applies onto to cat/foo, the three flag applies only to cat/baz but the two flag applies to cat/monkey and cat/hamster. Sets need to *look* different... > > Sets and packages aren't the same thing, and shouldn't be treated > > as if they are. >=20 > Packages and virtuals aren't the same thing either, but glep 37 > virtuals fit quite well into the existing ebuild framework. It seems > to me that set-property packages will also fit nicely into the > existing ebuild framework. GLEP 37 effectively abolishes virtuals. It doesn't try to overload new behaviour onto packages. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/8Tu=Xzg9Ib4c2wN3CBAjws8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjf8MIACgkQ96zL6DUtXhETsACeM/Ge73QCQgSLrmv+26H994Q0 vukAn3u8UjJTfh6Q1PYVCzSVUbYlabxm =6RFO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/8Tu=Xzg9Ib4c2wN3CBAjws8--