Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: adding sys-apps/iproute2 to the @system set

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
>
> And by the same reasoning of "bloat" we should remove openssh ( and maybe even
> rsync ;) ) because it's not strictly needed - so maybe we want a "minimal" and
> a "useful" stage3 ?

I could care less what is in the stage3, which only affects the
content of a gentoo system for its first 5 minutes of existence.  I
care more about what is in the system set.  Right now they're forced
to be the same thing. bit there is no reason that this has to be so.

If the stage3 bundles a bunch of stuff that either goes away at the
first --depclean or is just part of the initial world and can be
trivially removed (and there are no issues with parallel builds), then
I don't have a huge problem with it, though I still think that openssh
in the stage3 is overkill.

Minimal vs useful is certainly a good distinction, but just as with
the whole server profile debate the definition of useful varies
considerably.  I think that what would make the most sense is to
implement mix-ins so that everybody and their uncle can maintain their
own personal idea of a useful layer, and then strip the stage3 down to
what you really need to bootstrap a system, and limit the system set
to the stuff we really don't want to stick in every *DEPEND (libc,
baselayout, etc).

Trying to get everybody to agree on what is "useful" just leads to
endless bikeshedding - better to just let everybody or every project
have their own way and let everybody decide which way works for them.

--
Rich