Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set?

[Michael Mol]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
>> Bootstrapping is an inherently curious problem. Most systems are built
>> upon the systems they themselves build, but getting to that
>> self-hosting state always requires some unclean solution.
>
> Yup, I never viewed getting rid of @system as a solution to the
> bootstrapping problem.  You could even have an @stage3 set for
> convenience, or a meta-virtual to create one, using a fully
> functioning Gentoo system.  I also wasn't suggesting we have empty
> stage3s or anything like that.  By all means supply a default
> collection of packages, and feel free to include openssh in that
> collection.  However, those default packages would be nothing more
> than a starting point and users could uninstall them at will.  Perhaps
> portage would have some set it would offer a warning before
> uninstalling (either a hardcoded list like @system, or use logic like
> any dep of portage or gcc).

Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. It does depend on having
dependency logic fully expressed, and not dependent on @system as an
inherent dependency. But that's something that ought to be a long-term
goal, not a short-term goal, just based on the amount of work required
to get there, and possibly the work required to maintain it.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure portage already does offer a warning
when you might unmerge a package that's in @system; on a fresh
install, the first --depclean will try to remove nano, and portage
warns the user.

-- 
:wq