On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:09:40 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Er, look at the first post in the thread:
That was about the repository, not about the PMS; the question was
whether we need to respect the PMS and why it misses this _feature_,
for which no proposed specification exists afaik, so I don't see why
you quote that implementation as a reason for it not being in the PMS.
> The answer to that is the same as it's always been, and hasn't been
> changed by portage-2.2 being ~arch.
It hasn't changed _yet_, this wakes some sleeping dogs that will want
to see this happen; so, it might change as part of this discussion.
> In order for sets to be added to the tree, we need a spec, we need
> to decide where sets are allowed (package.mask?), and we need an
> implementation.
Sets in package.mask sounds unreliable as that would prohibit the set
from being changed as long as it masked; unless of course, the
specification would allow for a concept like "mask sets" to exist
where a particular set is denoted as masked. Otherwise, you would have
people add / remove things from a normal set and break the mask intent.
On a side note, it also makes it a bit harder to run the typical tools:
find ${PORTDIR} -name 'package.mask' -exec awk -vRS= '/avidemux/' {} \;
So, I would rather like to not see sets in package.mask or mask sets.
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
