-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:21:18 -0700 > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for >> improvements or alternative approaches? > > Strikes me as a good way of causing extreme confusion for users...
Perhaps it's not so confusing if the packages continue to behave normally in the usual cases, but they are mapped into set space as suggested earlier [1]. > Consider sets in package.use, for example. Any specified flags should > apply to the entire set. But what about set-property packages? In order to fit into the ebuild framework, the specified flags would only apply to direct dependency atoms. Atoms pulled in by recursion into other set-property packages would have the flags applied from those respective set-property packages. > Sets and packages aren't the same thing, and shouldn't be treated as if > they are. Packages and virtuals aren't the same thing either, but glep 37 virtuals fit quite well into the existing ebuild framework. It seems to me that set-property packages will also fit nicely into the existing ebuild framework. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d858a9a516fe3d1996c3809fba56f1db.xml - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjf7rcACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNlzQCfYrvTNDVTqqZjXgc7rUkfjT6J 8PMAmgLkC4dcprNL6GnuHzWUzM9zabxk =91yT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
