1 |
On Tuesday 06 December 2011 16:52:55 Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote: |
4 |
> > > On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> > > > what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set which |
6 |
> > > > is what would come in a stage3 rather than the current "stage3 is |
7 |
> > > > the system set". then we could move virtual/ssh out of the system |
8 |
> > > > set and into the "Gentoo default" set so it'd be easier for people |
9 |
> > > > to drop/etc... but i'm not familiar enough with the portage support |
10 |
> > > > atm to say how feasible such an idea would be. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > Similar to how we use packages.build to define the stage1 set, we could |
13 |
> > > add a packages.default to define the stage3 set. Alternatively, we |
14 |
> > > could use a meta-package to pull in the defaults, and adjust the |
15 |
> > > stage3 build to pull in that meta-package automatically. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > the packages.default sounds like a good idea as then we'd be able to |
18 |
> > tweak/stack it on a per-profile basis like existing files. i'll file a |
19 |
> > release bug on the topic, and then we can talk about moving virtual/ssh |
20 |
> > out of system and into that. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> We really need something generic here rather than just introducing new |
23 |
> files; this basically duplicates sets for example. |
24 |
|
25 |
sets isn't in stable portage yet, right ? and is it stackable in profiles ? |
26 |
-mike |