| 1 |
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think |
| 3 |
> that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it, |
| 4 |
> too. |
| 5 |
> @Stuart: What do you think? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set |
| 8 |
support. That might change down the road, after we've lived with it |
| 9 |
for awhile. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
One of the things we're going to trial is supporting USE flags in the |
| 12 |
seeds themselves. We'll try out having the |
| 13 |
seeds/lamp-server/release-1 profile (or whatever it ends up being |
| 14 |
called) setting a suitable set of USE flags to support a LAMP |
| 15 |
environment that includes Apache, PHP4&5, Perl, Python, and Rails. |
| 16 |
The seeds-base/lamp-server package itself will rely on USE flags to |
| 17 |
switch on all those options. If anyone wants to build the seed from |
| 18 |
source locally, they'll be able to change the USE flags (for example) |
| 19 |
to build a LAMP Server that's dedicated to just Rails, or just Python. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We think that'll make the LAMP Server seed more useful to our users in |
| 22 |
practice. The folks who want a quick stage4 tarball to seed a box - |
| 23 |
they'll get the whole nine yards. But folks who want to customise |
| 24 |
things (by compiling from source, probably using a stage3 tarball and |
| 25 |
the standard minimal install CD) - they're catered for too. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That's why - atm - we don't want to just lump everything into a |
| 28 |
profile, or just into a catalyst spec file. Maybe one of those will |
| 29 |
turn out to be the right way to go, but we'd like to explore this |
| 30 |
approach first, and see how things turn out. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Stu |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives