On 07/08/2017 02:48 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 07/07/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of >> sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a >> package set in a profile. Or at least I do not think you can. I have >> looked into it a bit and does not seem like it is possible. >> >> I know I can create a meta ebuild and use it like a package set. I >> think it would be useful to have package sets be able to be used in a >> profile like meta ebuilds. It would likely reduce the need or use of >> meta packages. Not sure if there is any benefit to that approach over a >> set. >> >> I think sets have benefits over meta packages. This was the most >> comprehensive document on sets, benefits, uses, etc. Other than the >> general docs on the wiki. >> https://makuro.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/intro-to-portage-sets/ >> >> I would really like to be able to use package sets in profiles. I >> think of use and benefit to others as well. >> > > 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.
Bug #272488[0] proposed a PROPERTIES="set" feature to combine the power of sets with the flexibility of ebuilds. 1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488
