| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:34:22 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> background: |
| 5 |
> everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial |
| 6 |
> stage tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be |
| 7 |
> completely sparse. we've got a bug for this topic: |
| 8 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/393445 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> items to sort out: |
| 11 |
> - should the list of packages be in catalyst or profile-stacked |
| 12 |
> content -> imo it should be entirely in the profile |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
fully agree |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> - should the packages list be in a new packages.default, or should we |
| 17 |
> create a new set to hold it, or should we just go with @profile ? |
| 18 |
> -> @profile has the advantage of already existing. we have to be |
| 19 |
> careful so as to make it difficult to uninstall packages that the |
| 20 |
> user does not actually want. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> - if the packages aren't in @profile, should they be seeded in |
| 23 |
> @world ? -> imo yes as we don't want all the default packages |
| 24 |
> getting depcleaned as soon as you start using the new install. if |
| 25 |
> they're in @profile, then this is a moot point (assuming depclean |
| 26 |
> does not clean out @profile). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
some kind of 'world' file in profiles like the 'packages' one that is |
| 29 |
just used to populate world file after (or just before) stage3 build ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
not sure if sets provide the same flexibility: i can imagine iputils in |
| 32 |
that set, but also another embedded profile with |
| 33 |
busybox[make-symlinks], or the bsds |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> - should stage3 be @system only, or @system+@profile, or |
| 36 |
> @system+@profile+packages.default ? |
| 37 |
> -> this depends on the previous discussion a bit. today, stage3's |
| 38 |
> are @system, but imo @system+@profile is reasonable. see next |
| 39 |
> question too. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> - should we release stage4's instead of stage3's ? |
| 42 |
> -> if we keep stage3 as @system-only, then we'd build stage4's which |
| 43 |
> would add @profile/whatever |
| 44 |
> -> downside is that we've been training the world to download & |
| 45 |
> install stage3 for almost 15 years |
| 46 |
> -> imo as long as the default @profile is kept slim, adjusting the |
| 47 |
> definition of a stage3 is OK |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
i also think it's better to adjust stage3 if it is kept relatively slim, |
| 50 |
but i'm pretty sure there'll be demand for @system only stages |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Alexis. |
Archives