| 1 |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:01:01 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> |
| 7 |
> > wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered |
| 9 |
> >> mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is |
| 10 |
> >> to have all the deps specified and nothing left in @system, and |
| 11 |
> >> while progress isn't fast by a long shot, the first thing is to |
| 12 |
> >> ensure we're not regressing! |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > If the ultimate goal is to eliminate @system entirely (which it |
| 16 |
> > probably isn't), we will need to revisit the way stage building |
| 17 |
> > works. If understand correctly, a stage3 contains @system and its |
| 18 |
> > dependencies. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The goal would be to eliminate @system entirely. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The solution to stage3 would be to have a set like @system of default |
| 23 |
> starting packages. It might even be a defined set that users could |
| 24 |
> make use of (emerge @default), but ebuilds could not assume that they |
| 25 |
> are present. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> To build them you just start with a working Gentoo system and emerge |
| 28 |
> them. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > The smallest you can really make @system under that circumstance |
| 32 |
> > would be a working toolchain and the utilities necessary to build |
| 33 |
> > any other needed packages. I think that is the goal that most |
| 34 |
> > people have been shooting for lately. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Nobody is suggesting that a system containing no packages whatsoever |
| 37 |
> should be bootable, let alone usable to bootstrap everything else. |
| 38 |
> There would be some minimal set of packages needed to bootstrap the |
| 39 |
> rest. However, ebuilds would need to explicitly declare their need |
| 40 |
> for them rather than assuming they are present. Virtuals could be |
| 41 |
> used to simplify this. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> In fact, there is a simple way to transition to such a system. Start |
| 44 |
> by defining a virtual that contains everything that is in @system |
| 45 |
> (setting aside the issue that this is profile-dependent), and adding |
| 46 |
> that as a DEPEND and RDEPEND to every ebuild. Then start paring it |
| 47 |
> down per-ebuild. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> The goal is not to have working Gentoo systems that contain nothing on |
| 50 |
> their hard drives, but rather to eliminate the arbitrary collection of |
| 51 |
> packages that must be present everywhere, because some software that |
| 52 |
> might or might not even be installed could need them. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
That arbitrary collection of packages is called a system. I don't think |
| 55 |
the goal for Gentoo should be to abandon standards like POSIX in favor |
| 56 |
of 'design system yourself but don't come crying to us if you forget |
| 57 |
some vital component which will make your system unbootable'. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Such a goals may be good for distributions like Exherbo which aim to |
| 60 |
make everything perfect. I believe that Gentoo aims more around 'good |
| 61 |
enough but at least realistic', instead of running for some kind of |
| 62 |
utopia which simply does not work. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Best regards, |
| 66 |
Michał Górny |
Archives