On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 21:42:35 Michael Palimaka wrote: | Now that portage-2.2 is in ~arch, we should now be able to add sets to | the tree. | | How should we go about doing this? In some overlays, the repository root | has sets/{foo,bar,etc} and sets.conf which might look like this: | | [gentoo sets] | class = portage.sets.files.StaticFileSet | multiset = true | directory = ${repository:gentoo}/sets/ | world-candidate = True | | It might be useful to have a standard header for each set: | | # Maintainer: f...@example.com | # Description: The complete set of all Foo packages | | Should everyone be free to add sets at will, or should each addition be | discussed first, similar to adding new global USE flags? | | Anything else to consider?
Discussion about current portage sets was sure to get hot. I strongly disagree with adding current portage sets to gentoo-x86. Not because they're not PMS compliant (which is a reason alone) but because they can be considered interim solution. Please refer to Zac's email on why portage-2.2_ was kept masked for that long. For live rebuilds, there's already proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488 For proper 'metapackage' replacement (USE flags support, etc), actually there's also some idea (Zac's 'PROPERTIES=set'): https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182028 In my opinion, we need to _have_ proper sets before we include them in gentoo-x86. regards MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.