From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lbo3b-0003Vc-Ki for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:34:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDCEEE0304; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D7CE0304 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B625B49D3 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:34:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.908 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.691, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxF6LWi9vsRS for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:33:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A71CB6F8D for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:33:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Lbo3P-0005gU-6Y for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:33:55 +0000 Received: from buffer.net ([24.73.161.102]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:33:55 +0000 Received: from wireless by buffer.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:33:55 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage and sets Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <49A26817.2030609@gmail.com> <200902231023.36118.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> <49A2745E.6060609@gmail.com> <20090223132610.1e02c7e0@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 24.73.161.102 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090216 SeaMonkey/1.1.14) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: cbf2d4e5-6528-4e01-8961-ea1d250cdbd7 X-Archives-Hash: 3076eccf7e5b55889044b39a9b78f242 Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes: > Sets are a replacement for meta-packages, so your set would contain the > packages you need. If it did contain kde-meta, then it would install all > of KDE, because that is a dependency of kde-meta. OK, color me "dense", but, if we are assuming there should be a smooth (easy) transition from kde-meta to kde "sets" I'm missing something. The posted lists (sets) do not look anything like the way kde-meta is organized. Call it herd mentality, but I bet many of the current kde-meta crowd would just love to have these sets defined for us and we can choose which of these generic sets we want, and then just build a set or 2 of our own. Then make a file that lists those and all we have to do is emerge that file. Poof done, kde-meta, simple fast and mostly like what other have, using gentoo defined sets for kde-4.2.x Should we not have some standard, logical listing of of the various kde packages, like the current categories for kde 3.5.x, only in set form? Sure folks could build there own sets but if all you want is the old kde-meta (give or take a few application), in sets+kde.4.2.x form, there should be some predefined sets for us? That is to say, (more clearly I hope); when I go to the kde button in 3.5.9, I get these categories: Development Entertainment Games Graphics So what aren't there pre-defined sets with this sort of grouping? Thus the new kde-4.2.x would be a straight convert (except for applications that are lost and/or gained) to ease the transition to kde 4.2.x using sets. Really, all I want is a similar setup to kde-meta, via sets && Kde 4.2.x, without having to get intimate with 200+ applications..... and not having to define my own sets. Is this already done? Looking at the previous links and Neils postings, at first glance it tells me I'm going to have to spend days learning about what all of these individual packages do to have a somewhat similar setup that kde-meta provided. I do not what to learn the details and names of all of that stuff. I want to emerge a small number of sets and POOF as close as I can get (with sets and kde4.2) to the ole kde-meta? Am I being unreasonable? Did I miss something? (and yes, I'm lazy, mentally crippled, and slow that's why I still do admin work....) James