| 1 |
On 10/15/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> background: |
| 3 |
> everyone wants @system to be slim, but most people want the initial stage |
| 4 |
> tarball that we release and you install Gentoo from to not be completely |
| 5 |
> sparse. we've got a bug for this topic: |
| 6 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/393445 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> items to sort out: |
| 9 |
> - should the list of packages be in catalyst or profile-stacked content |
| 10 |
> -> imo it should be entirely in the profile |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - should the packages list be in a new packages.default, or should we create a |
| 13 |
> new set to hold it, or should we just go with @profile ? |
| 14 |
> -> @profile has the advantage of already existing. we have to be careful so as |
| 15 |
> to make it difficult to uninstall packages that the user does not actually |
| 16 |
> want. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In portage, the current meaning of @profile is very similar to @system, |
| 19 |
except that it implies that members specify dependencies completely |
| 20 |
(allowing for optimal parallelization) [1]. The @profile set is only |
| 21 |
enabled for profiles from repositories that have "profile-formats = |
| 22 |
profile-set" set in metadata/layout.conf. It's an extension which is not |
| 23 |
covered by PMS. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> - if the packages aren't in @profile, should they be seeded in @world ? |
| 26 |
> -> imo yes as we don't want all the default packages getting depcleaned as |
| 27 |
> soon as you start using the new install. if they're in @profile, then this |
| 28 |
> is a moot point (assuming depclean does not clean out @profile). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In portage, @world = @profile + @selected + @system, which means that |
| 31 |
@profile is protected from depclean since it's a part of @world. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=532224 |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Zac |
Archives