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 1OMlPO-00087m-Nf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:19:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 728B9E084E; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36494E084E for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm16 with SMTP id 16so137830fxm.40 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:19:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:disposition-notification-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=NN5SwgoPF7h0nh4OJRdIDrHXBiazgTNQnV/GYEWXA5U=; b=jbSfexV6UaG6V2F7FC7IRh3R/Hk26Cp2w7QO0X8z9L4E79ALiZLCSp3TQ4jjLuw5qw 8IgfjjrMeTXmHe/kiMOY3xN1xyAIgt17tKzeMFShoU0nZwA/s4WCIJLrGrPkQ0HLcfWV dHQ49+AbyJuDpiS1U77DhHKlpWeiv3Wi03Z80= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :disposition-notification-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=VrueT70VixsI8RptdZvwFDfcrOTZ0l23Nx6hQpEhTryRJbCAFs+JkRS/Ewm2hmGnlF mmwagr+lxDteR0AM6p9jnUMBRiSsBNC6edHoMTcdgKR3tibefHcAd6kG8+y3fot85T40 q5sdt3AtuJgOatV89Ikj9RVQrXu2XQRcC95S8= Received: by 10.223.18.154 with SMTP id w26mr639633faa.39.1276190350302; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lebrodyl.localnet (ehr89.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.21.107.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g10sm876121fai.12.2010.06.10.10.19.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Maciej Mrozowski To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:19:04 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.32-gentoo-r7; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20100610154238.45ad9de2@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20100610154238.45ad9de2@pomiocik.lan> 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: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <201006101919.04485.reavertm@gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 0762f505-1086-428e-b5b6-e9c7f4e3bb21 X-Archives-Hash: 759b253cd6c2499844e7e68598155635 On Thursday 10 of June 2010 15:42:38 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > Hello, >=20 > 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 > 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 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > [1] http://tnij.org/g6rl Please take a look at https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D272488 It contains Zac's PROPERTES=3Dset proposition with sets syntax fitting cu= rrent=20 atom syntax (like metapackages just with a bit different behaviour). By=20 definition It supports USE flags and I believe it's also simpler to imple= ment. --=20 regards MM