On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > 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 >
What do sets get us that packages do not? Why not move the other direction and just have packages instead of sets? One issue I see with sets is that as far as I can tell they aren't specified in PMS at all, so they can't go into the tree at all, and not all package managers may support them in the same way. Certainly this could be standardized, but I'm not sure what they actually get us. -- Rich
