On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 NP-Hardass <np-hard...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that > you are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in full > dependency syntax. This means you can specify versions, USE flag > dependencies, make packages dependent on USE flags, etc. A package > set is just a list of packages (potentially constrained by version. > TTBOMK, there is no inclusion of any USE flag functionality in sets. > Additionally, let's say you have a more complicated dependency like > || ( A B ), I don't think there is a way to describe that in a > package set at all.
All valid points, but there maybe times when such is not needed. You cannot really do any of that easily via a profile either. You just have packages file in a profile. You can use the other stuff, but I am talking about sets. Just as packages are listed in a packages file in a profile. Being able to list a package set, vs those same packages. There is no difference there. > I'm not sure I see the merit in pushing for package sets in the bulk > of cases for this reason. Maybe there is some scenario where package > sets are a better option, but you haven't enumerated what that might > be (and I'm not really interested in brainstorming until I come up > with one, so I'll wait for one frmo someone else) Not sure I need to show a case example of where sets are better than meta packages. Its more I want to use sets and I would like to be able to include those package sets in a profile. > Of course, my sets knowledge is a little limited compared to some > people, so if something I've said about package sets is incorrect, > please feel free to correct it. You cannot remove all packages ( short of dep clean ) or re-emerge all packages from a meta ebuild easily. You can from a set. Sets do have their uses. I think they are not used much for a variety of reasons, but likely could be used more. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpDmJSAHVTYl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
