-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: >> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: >>> On Monday 29 September 2008 01:37:03 Zac Medico wrote: >>>>> Why the need for multiple solutions at all? PROPERTIES=set is too weird >>>>> and involves too much nonsensical behaviour to be useful. >>>> I don't see the PROPERTIES=set approach as being worse than any >>>> other approach for package set definition. It has lots of advantages >>>> because of the way that it fits into the existing ebuild framework >>>> like virtual ebuilds do [1], allowing it to leverage all of the >>>> existing features of the framework (including package.use) and also >>>> allowing it to leverage the tools that have been designed to work >>>> with the framework. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0037.html >>> I really don't see the advantages of fitting 'into the existing ebuild >>> framework like virtual ebuilds do'. Can you name any real advantages to it? >> This idea initially came up when Jorge (jmbsvicetto) mentioned that >> he had used a package set to replace a meta-ebuild in the >> desktop-effects overlay, and then users complained that the set did >> not supporting the USE conditionals that the previous meta-ebuild >> had supported. > > For those interested, the complaints were about this meta-ebuild > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=x11-wm/compiz-fusion/compiz-fusion-0.7.8.ebuild;h=91783ea46143daa90f8102936e170ff43059491b;hb=master > that I replaced with the > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=sets/compiz-fusion-complete;h=5281e30f5a4677f5f0ef882db9ff187883d569ea;hb=master > and > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/desktop-effects.git;a=blob;f=sets/compiz-fusion;h=8a7869e77ea72f54f9bea6e1b214c124c7025934;hb=master > sets. > Optional deps on the set would allow the user to select whether to > install the gnome or kde backends and to install the unsupported plugins > or not.
Let's be clear about what you mean by "optional". In this case I think you mean "conditional upon USE flag settings". > Another alternative in this case, is to use the set operators so that I > have a single set for all packages and tell the user to create a set > with the packages he doesn't want to install from the overlay and run > emerge @[EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me that users will generally want something more persistent than that, in order for world updates and --depclean operations work as expected. In order to make it persistent the user could use set configuration files to subtract the unwanted atoms from @compiz-fusion, yet still be able to refer to it as @compiz-fusion and have @compiz-fusion listed in /var/lib/portage/world_sets. >> Perhaps we can support USE conditionals in sets, but this also seems >> to mean that we will need a package.use analog that applies to >> package sets. Assuming that we'll need a package.use analog, we >> might view the act of replacing meta-packages with sets as a sort of >> "throwing the baby out with the bath water" scenario in sense that >> meta-packages have lots of useful features and the only reason to >> migrate them to sets would be take advantage of the unique features >> which sets have to offer. So, rather than force a complete >> migration, we may want to consider integrating meta-packages into >> the sets framework. > > Can package.use syntax be extended to allow set entries? > @compiz-fusion -gnome kde kde4 Perhaps, but we need to clarify how that sort of setting will affect nested sets. For example, if @compiz-fusion contains nested sets, would those USE settings apply to the nested sets as well? Will nested sets be allowed to have independent USE settings from the sets that nest them? - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjhucAACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPzJQCeKGHC4mC2hEFiVSYeP43w9oAv a9sAoJY9JWjMugzRv6GMSDzbrABmRaSV =W1wj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
