On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:00:43 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:54:44 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds > > > of repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be > > > code... > > > > Simple things like getting a list of packages which own a particular > > file (for rebuilds) or grepping a variable are useful to users. > > That's something done by sets as provided by the package mangler, not > something done by repository-specified sets. So we should provide separate copies of the same sets for each package mangler? > > For example, the x11 overlay provides a set to rebuild the xorg > > server modules after an update. > > That's just a list of package specs. The user then says "only the ones > of these that I have installed" by the way the set is used. Well, I think a simple specification saying 'all installed packages which install to /usr/lib/foo' is much simpler to write and maintain than a random number of package names. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
