-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:56:27 -0700: > >> For example, `emerge kde-meta` would behave as as normal meta-package >> currently does, and `emerge @kde-meta` would reference the same package >> as a set and could thereby trigger different behavior which is >> appropriate for a set. > > Ahh... that's rather clearer now. Somehow I missed that bit before. > > However, it seems to me we'd have some of the same types of issues we've > previously discussed over the distinction between world and @world. It's > going to be virtually impossible to get some users to see the difference, > with the consequence being that they use the wrong reference (probably > skipping the @ as unnecessary typing) and end up with (to them) > completely unexpected behaviour. How long have we been drilling into > users' heads that they need to use --pretend (or --ask) --verbose to > check that what they intend is really what's going to happen? Yet I just > dealt with a case the other day where someone ended up with something > entirely (to them) unexpected, because they failed to preview what was > going to happen, first.
I'm not suggesting that the ebuild and the package set necessarily need to have the same name. What I'm suggesting is that we use a configuration file, distributed with the ebuild repository, to map set names to ebuilds. This mapping would make the set name independent from the ebuild name. > Going out of our way to (effectively) make things even /more/ confusing > by deliberately creating set-packages that can be referred to as either, > with different behavior in each case, would seem to be the equivalent of > deliberately setting traps for those poor users. (Yes, they /should/ > know the difference and it's a PEBCAK if they don't/won't, but > unfortunately that PEBCAK is/can-safely-be-predicted-to-be rather > common...) > > So sure, we can institute it as suggested, damn the torpedos, but I > believe it's safely predictable that come a few months hence, after we've > dealt with our tenth person to end up screwing their system as a result, > we're going to rue the day... Never-the-less, it's not my decision. > I don't expect users to have much trouble with this concept, and they don't even have to use sets unless they want to make use of the additional features that sets provide. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjgeEkACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOObQCghFkrhJiTVXAerwJXRbKJxk7R yKsAmgIWp1VAA2glNuQ+pa6U8OjnYszq =HzsM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
