| 1 |
Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis |
| 2 |
and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised. |
| 3 |
One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the |
| 4 |
other noise, forms the basis of this proposal. It is in some ways more |
| 5 |
and in some ways less intrusive than the previous proposal, |
| 6 |
and is also completely package-manager-agnostic. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
In short, I would like to suggest replacing sys-apps/portage atoms in |
| 9 |
the base and default-linux profiles with virtual/portage, and removing |
| 10 |
the python dependencies from them. For most users this would have an |
| 11 |
effective zero change, since the default provider for virtual/portage |
| 12 |
is sys-apps/portage, and the python dependency will be pulled in by |
| 13 |
Portage when calculating system deps. According to my understanding, |
| 14 |
this should also produce no change when building release media, due to |
| 15 |
both Portage and Python being in packages.build. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The only change introduced by this is that it becomes possible to |
| 18 |
bootstrap a system with a different package manager simply by |
| 19 |
installing it before 'system'. There are a couple more changes needed |
| 20 |
to allow this -- namely that a few system packages have old |
| 21 |
dependencies on >=portage-2.0.49, but these can be resolved seperately. |
| 22 |
Any problems caused by packages depending implicitly upon Python will |
| 23 |
show up only on systems not using Portage, and can be easily fixed with |
| 24 |
the cooperation of package maintainers. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the concerns |
| 27 |
raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about support for any |
| 28 |
other package manager, and introduces nothing that could cause problems |
| 29 |
for Portage users, while still allowing alternative package managers to |
| 30 |
use the tree without needing Portage installed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I am also aware that this falls roughly under what the Council was |
| 33 |
asked to discuss in its June meeting, but since that seems to have not |
| 34 |
happened, I'm bringing it up anyway, since I would like to get |
| 35 |
something done here. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Comments? |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives