| 1 |
On 16:27 Tue 14 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:08:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And no, I don't think that Gentoo should fully support reduced-@system |
| 4 |
> > builds, but there is no harm in making them more of a viable option. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Personally... I think gentoo should aim for it actually. Question is |
| 7 |
> how close we can get to it w/out overly burdening developers. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Where this has been most useful for me is when I'm building out a |
| 10 |
minimal system (e.g., a diskless terminal or cluster node) using |
| 11 |
ROOT=/somewhere/else. It's nice to just start emerging stuff there |
| 12 |
instead of having to unpack a stage1 or something first. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I wonder if we need another set that's really @base (truly minimal, like |
| 15 |
what Mike posted elsewhere), so @system would then serve as what we |
| 16 |
think is necessary for a running Gentoo installation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On a related note that would accomplish similar purposes, it would also |
| 19 |
be nice if we could somehow discriminate between DEPEND and RDEPEND for |
| 20 |
@system packages so build-only deps could be removed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Donnie |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 27 |
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 28 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives