1 |
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
> > On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set which is |
5 |
> > > what would come in a stage3 rather than the current "stage3 is the |
6 |
> > > system set". then we could move virtual/ssh out of the system set and |
7 |
> > > into the "Gentoo default" set so it'd be easier for people to |
8 |
> > > drop/etc... but i'm not familiar enough with the portage support atm to |
9 |
> > > say how feasible such an idea would be. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Similar to how we use packages.build to define the stage1 set, we could |
12 |
> > add a packages.default to define the stage3 set. Alternatively, we could |
13 |
> > use a meta-package to pull in the defaults, and adjust the stage3 build |
14 |
> > to pull in that meta-package automatically. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> the packages.default sounds like a good idea as then we'd be able to |
17 |
> tweak/stack it on a per-profile basis like existing files. i'll file a release |
18 |
> bug on the topic, and then we can talk about moving virtual/ssh out of system |
19 |
> and into that. |
20 |
|
21 |
We really need something generic here rather than just introducing new |
22 |
files; this basically duplicates sets for example. |
23 |
~harring |