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

["William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1479 bytes --]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 00:49:57 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:39:33 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@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?

> Sets  remain half-baked because it turns out they don't make
> consistent sense in different contexts when you give them a
> non-superficial amount of thought.

Much of the world is half baked, but we manage despite such. There is
much to be said about over thinking over engineering something.
Few if anything in life is perfect. Many of the things we depend on are
far from perfect. C'est la vie.

This must be a Gentoo thing. Sets have nothing to do with me. Seems they
have been around since ~2009. Someone coded in support for them etc.
Seems some find use for them, and others have objection.

Having been around Gentoo for some time, and just now coming across
sets. I find them quite useful! Just ran into one limitation of them.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]