Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Support @profile package set for bug #532224

["Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2089 bytes --]

On 12/11/2014 03:38 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 12:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Dnia 2014-12-10, o godz. 18:08:00
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Add support for a new @profile set which allows the profile to pull
>>> in additional packages that do not belong to the @system set.
>>>
>>> The motivation to have @profile separate from @system is that
>>> @system packages may have incomplete dependency specifications
>>> (due to long-standing Gentoo policy), and incomplete dependency
>>> specifications have deleterious effects on the ability of emerge
>>> --jobs to parallelize builds. So, unlike @system, packages added to
>>> @profile do not hurt emerge --jobs parallelization.
>>>
>>> Packages are added to the @profile set in the same way that they are
>>> added to the @system set, except that atoms in the @profile set are
>>> not preceded with a '*' character. Also, the @profile package set
>>> is only supported when 'profile-set' is listed in the layout.conf
>>> profile-formats field of the containing repository.
>>
>> PMS says PMs ought to ignore atoms without '*'. This means we can't use
>> it without profile EAPI change, or other PMs will start losing packages.

I have to agree, any chance we can get this into EAPI 6?
> 
> It's hidden behind a layout.conf profile-formats flag, so it's beyond
> the scope of PMS. Package managers should reject the profile if they
> don't recognize the profile-formats flags that it declares.
> 
Yes, but that still makes this change incompatible with other package
managers, no?  If we remove the leading * from a package to signify that
it can safely be built in parallel that would mean all non-portage
package managers would just plain lose the package, if they didn't shit
themselves because the file had an invalid line.

We need to make this EAPI dependant or we are going to break things, and
QA doesn't like it when things this big break.  I love where this is
going, but I do not see a better solution here than making it EAPI
dependent.

-Zero


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 884 bytes --]