On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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. > I don't think we're writing new tools to do this, we're simply using the existing ones better. So, a list of explicit ebuilds by Category/Package-Version is what's desired (I believe). But I'll defer to kensington/ago who are the ones really using this system in anger ...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
