On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:53:12 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Does this seem like a good approach? Are there any suggestions for > >> improvements or alternative approaches? > > > > Strikes me as a good way of causing extreme confusion for users... > > Perhaps it's not so confusing if the packages continue to behave > normally in the usual cases, but they are mapped into set space as > suggested earlier [1].
Then why not just make the things sets? Come up with a standard way of distributing sets as part of a repository, and let future EAPIs include deps upon sets. > > Consider sets in package.use, for example. Any specified flags > > should apply to the entire set. But what about set-property > > packages? > > In order to fit into the ebuild framework, the specified flags would > only apply to direct dependency atoms. Atoms pulled in by recursion > into other set-property packages would have the flags applied from > those respective set-property packages. Right, so you'd get the bizarre case that, given: cat/foo one cat/bar two cat/baz three The one flag applies onto to cat/foo, the three flag applies only to cat/baz but the two flag applies to cat/monkey and cat/hamster. Sets need to *look* different... > > Sets and packages aren't the same thing, and shouldn't be treated > > as if they are. > > Packages and virtuals aren't the same thing either, but glep 37 > virtuals fit quite well into the existing ebuild framework. It seems > to me that set-property packages will also fit nicely into the > existing ebuild framework. GLEP 37 effectively abolishes virtuals. It doesn't try to overload new behaviour onto packages. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
