| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure |
| 4 |
> for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple, |
| 5 |
> and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start defining |
| 6 |
> some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole profile tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Would it actually make sense to reinvent more of the profile tree |
| 10 |
while we're at it? So, have a few categories of mixins like kernel, |
| 11 |
arch, and some category that covers really invasive stuff like |
| 12 |
hardened/libc/etc? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Those might be 1-of-n selections. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Then we could have the fluff that sits on top and just set some rules |
| 17 |
about what they can do. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Part of me wonders if some of this could also fit in with the use of |
| 20 |
virtuals (think foo-meta virtuals but bigger). A virtual can of |
| 21 |
course pull in USE dependencies, and a lot of other stuff. We could |
| 22 |
have convenience virtuals that all the profiles pull in by default but |
| 23 |
which gets stuff like openssh out of @system. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm only suggesting the last bit to the extent where we see tie-ins to |
| 26 |
improve the initial mix-in implementation. A lot of that is probably |
| 27 |
an expansion in scope, and to that extent I'm not suggesting that it |
| 28 |
needs to be addressed. I just want to think about it broadly at first |
| 29 |
to make sure we're not missing something. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives