Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-libs/ncurses: punted from system in profiles

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 06 December 2011 17:27:48 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:06:33PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 16:52:55 Brian Harring wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote:
> > > > > On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set
> > > > > > which is what would come in a stage3 rather than the current
> > > > > > "stage3 is the system set". then we could move virtual/ssh out
> > > > > > of the system set and into the "Gentoo default" set so it'd be
> > > > > > easier for people to drop/etc...  but i'm not familiar enough
> > > > > > with the portage support atm to say how feasible such an idea
> > > > > > would be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similar to how we use packages.build to define the stage1 set, we
> > > > > could add a packages.default to define the stage3 set.
> > > > > Alternatively, we could use a meta-package to pull in the
> > > > > defaults, and adjust the stage3 build to pull in that meta-package
> > > > > automatically.
> > > >
> > > > the packages.default sounds like a good idea as then we'd be able to
> > > > tweak/stack it on a per-profile basis like existing files.  i'll file
> > > > a release bug on the topic, and then we can talk about moving
> > > > virtual/ssh out of system and into that.
> > >
> > > We really need something generic here rather than just introducing new
> > > files; this basically duplicates sets for example.
> >
> > sets isn't in stable portage yet, right ?  and is it stackable in
> > profiles ?
>
> Bluntly, portage set support from the tree isn't something I'm sure we
> really want to support /anyways/; it's fairly portage specific last I
> looked.  Also, it isn't stackable from profiles.

sounds like you support Zac's previous idea then: packages.default :)
-mike