Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:04:08
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=ZgBsZ2x+acXLsvH5diqTEgvXEewUyQgnYQFhi_Jncvg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set? by Michael Mol
1 On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
2 > Bootstrapping is an inherently curious problem. Most systems are built
3 > upon the systems they themselves build, but getting to that
4 > self-hosting state always requires some unclean solution.
5
6 Yup, I never viewed getting rid of @system as a solution to the
7 bootstrapping problem. You could even have an @stage3 set for
8 convenience, or a meta-virtual to create one, using a fully
9 functioning Gentoo system. I also wasn't suggesting we have empty
10 stage3s or anything like that. By all means supply a default
11 collection of packages, and feel free to include openssh in that
12 collection. However, those default packages would be nothing more
13 than a starting point and users could uninstall them at will. Perhaps
14 portage would have some set it would offer a warning before
15 uninstalling (either a hardcoded list like @system, or use logic like
16 any dep of portage or gcc).
17
18 Rich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set? Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>