1 |
måndag 23 januari 2017 kl. 13:56:02 CET skrev Rich Freeman: |
2 |
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure |
4 |
> > for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple, |
5 |
> > and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start defining |
6 |
> > some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole profile tree. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Would it actually make sense to reinvent more of the profile tree |
9 |
> while we're at it? So, have a few categories of mixins like kernel, |
10 |
> arch, and some category that covers really invasive stuff like |
11 |
> hardened/libc/etc? |
12 |
> |
13 |
i think it would make sense to reinvent/split it up to a few categories/mixins |
14 |
like |
15 |
base |
16 |
arch |
17 |
abi |
18 |
libc |
19 |
kernel |
20 |
init/udev |
21 |
desktop |
22 |
server |
23 |
security |
24 |
|
25 |
> Those might be 1-of-n selections. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Then we could have the fluff that sits on top and just set some rules |
28 |
> about what they can do. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Part of me wonders if some of this could also fit in with the use of |
31 |
> virtuals (think foo-meta virtuals but bigger). A virtual can of |
32 |
> course pull in USE dependencies, and a lot of other stuff. We could |
33 |
> have convenience virtuals that all the profiles pull in by default but |
34 |
> which gets stuff like openssh out of @system. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I'm only suggesting the last bit to the extent where we see tie-ins to |
37 |
> improve the initial mix-in implementation. A lot of that is probably |
38 |
> an expansion in scope, and to that extent I'm not suggesting that it |
39 |
> needs to be addressed. I just want to think about it broadly at first |
40 |
> to make sure we're not missing something. |