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 1OMibD-0007Pr-QU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:19:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC2A2E06D0; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f227.google.com (mail-ew0-f227.google.com [209.85.219.227]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CD7E06D0 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so2012697ewy.10 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.102.197.15 with SMTP id u15mr115418muf.38.1276179552646; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-253-24-136.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.24.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j10sm72110muh.58.2010.06.10.07.19.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Spam Box Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:18:30 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature Message-ID: <20100610161830.0cfdcbb5@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20100610145105.45d4469d@snowcone> References: <20100610154238.45ad9de2@pomiocik.lan> <20100610145105.45d4469d@snowcone> 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_/rGcscptOXwhG0X7nq_U6V//"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: acf9245e-b652-473a-bd92-5c68c5921b8b X-Archives-Hash: f43bc6da31e75652893fdf3f4071541d --Sig_/rGcscptOXwhG0X7nq_U6V// Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:51:05 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200 > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > 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. >=20 > This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS. Yep, I was trying to get some feedback first to see if it's even worth trying. > > 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. >=20 > The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be > specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including > code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases. > You'll need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that > nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it. Zac seems pretty open to replace the whole 'class' idea with some pre-defined 'types'. But I'd personally like to have the specs first instead of building them on a ready code. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/rGcscptOXwhG0X7nq_U6V// Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwQ9DoACgkQnGSe5QXeB7tqAwCg3liCIEXFTGyi2ZcANWbarA+o uYAAn3lLEqtQoLR2JwWPyw4I+TBSfGky =272q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/rGcscptOXwhG0X7nq_U6V//--