Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets

["Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Zac Medico wrote:
> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> On Monday 29 September 2008 01:37:03 Zac Medico wrote:
>>>> Why the need for multiple solutions at all? PROPERTIES=set is too weird
>>>> and involves too much nonsensical behaviour to be useful.
>>> I don't see the PROPERTIES=set approach as being worse than any
>>> other approach for package set definition. It has lots of advantages
>>> because of the way that it fits into the existing ebuild framework
>>> like virtual ebuilds do [1], allowing it to leverage all of the
>>> existing features of the framework (including package.use) and also
>>> allowing it to leverage the tools that have been designed to work
>>> with the framework.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0037.html
>> I really don't see the advantages of fitting 'into the existing ebuild 
>> framework like virtual ebuilds do'. Can you name any real advantages to it? 
> 
> This idea initially came up when Jorge (jmbsvicetto) mentioned that
> he had used a package set to replace a meta-ebuild in the
> desktop-effects overlay, and then users complained that the set did
> not supporting the USE conditionals that the previous meta-ebuild
> had supported.

For those interested, the complaints were about this meta-ebuild
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=x11-wm/compiz-fusion/compiz-fusion-0.7.8.ebuild;h=91783ea46143daa90f8102936e170ff43059491b;hb=master
that I replaced with the
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=sets/compiz-fusion-complete;h=5281e30f5a4677f5f0ef882db9ff187883d569ea;hb=master
and
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=sets/compiz-fusion;h=8a7869e77ea72f54f9bea6e1b214c124c7025934;hb=master
sets.
Optional deps on the set would allow the user to select whether to
install the gnome or kde backends and to install the unsupported plugins
or not.
Another alternative in this case, is to use the set operators so that I
have a single set for all packages and tell the user to create a set
with the packages he doesn't want to install from the overlay and run
emerge @compiz-fusion-@compiz-fusion-unwanted.

> Perhaps we can support USE conditionals in sets, but this also seems
> to mean that we will need a package.use analog that applies to
> package sets. Assuming that we'll need a package.use analog, we
> might view the act of replacing meta-packages with sets as a sort of
> "throwing the baby out with the bath water" scenario in sense that
> meta-packages have lots of useful features and the only reason to
> migrate them to sets would be take advantage of the unique features
> which sets have to offer. So, rather than force a complete
> migration, we may want to consider integrating meta-packages into
> the sets framework.

Can package.use syntax be extended to allow set entries?
@compiz-fusion -gnome kde kde4

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjhr3sACgkQcAWygvVEyAIs7QCfVZUPK5tV3PxTRPDz18C97Y1d
xFQAn2qNMzPyDUhr0RJDsoWg45MWkJEJ
=TYZC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----