From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OMi2g-0003lk-Sv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:43:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97694E0729; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:43:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5859BE0729 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:43:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so2037974bwz.40 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.83.228 with SMTP id g36mr158370bkl.133.1276177407409; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-253-24-136.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.24.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v14sm79019bkz.8.2010.06.10.06.43.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Spam Box Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature Message-ID: <20100610154238.45ad9de2@pomiocik.lan> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/+K_6.DD4Gu5YIeU/sg2PnF4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 0cd4e390-6beb-4da6-93de-97034c091079 X-Archives-Hash: 14063ea36e543fc3153775947ce37eb6 --Sig_/+K_6.DD4Gu5YIeU/sg2PnF4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files. The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86. On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1]. This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild after the xorg-server ABI change. Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository- -specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild sets. This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it. What I would like to see in the PMS is: 1) a definition of a 'set', 2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes them using specific classes but portable names would be much better), 3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file. In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets' into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to reference them. [1] http://tnij.org/g6rl --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/+K_6.DD4Gu5YIeU/sg2PnF4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwQ69MACgkQnGSe5QXeB7txmACgtCRAm1pAXQwUSn4V5DLmKUH7 2QgAnjQcJ9XPSu0lRmN6PUyKAFHAxsGD =2CpJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/+K_6.DD4Gu5YIeU/sg2PnF4--