On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +0000 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an >> associated category atoms? > > Sets /are/ still dependency specifications, in that reading, just like > || ( ) groups are dependency specifications, and lists of atoms are > dependency specifications. > > Hence, this is an example of in my mind why "atom" is a *better* descriptor > than "dependency specification" > > Because it rules out sets and all the other shenanigans.
However, in this case why would we want to rule out sets, "and all the other shenanigans?" We've already established that a single stable request bug can apply to multiple package-versions, so why not allow full dependency specifications? If there is a set that describes what needs to be stabilized in an atomic operation, then what is the value in breaking it down into a million separate =-only atoms? If the process becomes further aided by automated tools then using the same dependency specifications as PMS/etc would allow the same code to be used to identify candidate PVs to stabilize. Of course in the most typical case you're stabilizing exactly one PV, but I'm not sure we need to limit the syntax simply because that is all that is required in the most common case. -- Rich
