On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:41:24 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > A 'type' field would be useful as well, to support various kinds of > package sets (much like portage handles currently).
I'm highly doubtful that there's any real need for different kinds of repository-provided sets. We especially don't want sets to be code... > > dev-monkey/howler > > dev-monkey/spider > > >=dev-monkey/spanky-2.0 > > dev-monkey/squirrel > > We'd either want to add || ( ) here, or somehow explicitly specify > that this is a one-of set. No, that's something that's determined by how the set's used, not by what's in the set. There's no such thing as a "one-of" set; a set is just a list of package dep specs. > > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, > > wikis and web 2.0. > > And introduces another dedicated file format the PM has to implement > from scratch. It's a simple text file. It takes fewer lines of code to parse it from scratch than it does to get the results out of an XML parser. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
