| 1 |
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:12:22 -0500 |
| 2 |
james <garftd@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> (also, I'm not hung up on 'Jentoo' as a name; perhaps 'Gintoo'? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> (peace && hth), |
| 7 |
> James |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Way outside the scope needed here. However we pull off Zhenchoo, its |
| 10 |
going to be built on top of portage and our package management with |
| 11 |
extra bling. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's what is necessary to empower people with "ready built" machines |
| 14 |
to customize it in the direction of a "natural gentoo install" |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
All this converstation details is: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- Is a given technique good |
| 19 |
- Can it be installed in tree without breaking things |
| 20 |
- How do we do that |
| 21 |
- Is there a place we can do it where the problem is isolated to a |
| 22 |
narrow spectrum of users to limit potential fallout |
| 23 |
- Is this a "Put warning bells on it and let users blow off their own |
| 24 |
feet and then don't do it by default"[1] thing. |
| 25 |
- Can this be a "Just package.mask the problem on hardened" thing. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
All of those can be combined in some way to get and end result by |
| 28 |
whoever ships the stage 4 the way they want to do it. They can use an |
| 29 |
overlay if they want. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Nothing is stopping them :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Other than themselves of course. |
Archives