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

[Joshua Kinard]

On 09/07/2014 16:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote:
>> IMHO, I think @system should maintain at least one editor and include
>> some kind of networking diagnostic package.
>
> Why is it important that we not be able to parallel build an editor? Is
> it such a frequent build-time dependency that we wouldn't want to specify
> it?  It is essential that we make it extra-hard for a user to uninstall
> their last editor, since it is impossible to install an editor without an
> editor already present?

Re: editor, I was referring to this:

On 09/06/2014 09:37, Rich Freeman wrote:
> There isn't much question that stuff like rsync and nano (via the
> editor virtual) should be in the stage3 just so that we're not ripping
> our hair out during installation.  However, they really don't need to
> be part of the system set.  How many packages really need to depend on
> an editor (and I'm talking linking and other technical issues that
> affect builds - not practical use)?

And thus, I was referring only to @system, not a stage3.  I think an editor
should be in @system, but as much as I like nano, I know the ncurses
dependency won't sit well with everyone.  If @system is supposed to be a
minimal-working system, a minimal vim deserves consideration.  But if
ncurses is already being dragged in by something else, then stick with nano.

As for Parallel builds, do you make make -jX?  Or running concurrent emerges
in different shells?  I wasn't commenting at all on parallel builds.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@g.o
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic