1 |
On 12/06/2011 02:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 17:27:48 Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:06:33PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 16:52:55 Brian Harring wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote: |
7 |
>>>>>> On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
8 |
>>>>>>> what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set |
9 |
>>>>>>> which is what would come in a stage3 rather than the current |
10 |
>>>>>>> "stage3 is the system set". then we could move virtual/ssh out |
11 |
>>>>>>> of the system set and into the "Gentoo default" set so it'd be |
12 |
>>>>>>> easier for people to drop/etc... but i'm not familiar enough |
13 |
>>>>>>> with the portage support atm to say how feasible such an idea |
14 |
>>>>>>> would be. |
15 |
>>>>>> |
16 |
>>>>>> Similar to how we use packages.build to define the stage1 set, we |
17 |
>>>>>> could add a packages.default to define the stage3 set. |
18 |
>>>>>> Alternatively, we could use a meta-package to pull in the |
19 |
>>>>>> defaults, and adjust the stage3 build to pull in that meta-package |
20 |
>>>>>> automatically. |
21 |
>>>>> |
22 |
>>>>> the packages.default sounds like a good idea as then we'd be able to |
23 |
>>>>> tweak/stack it on a per-profile basis like existing files. i'll file |
24 |
>>>>> a release bug on the topic, and then we can talk about moving |
25 |
>>>>> virtual/ssh out of system and into that. |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> We really need something generic here rather than just introducing new |
28 |
>>>> files; this basically duplicates sets for example. |
29 |
>>> |
30 |
>>> sets isn't in stable portage yet, right ? and is it stackable in |
31 |
>>> profiles ? |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> Bluntly, portage set support from the tree isn't something I'm sure we |
34 |
>> really want to support /anyways/; it's fairly portage specific last I |
35 |
>> looked. Also, it isn't stackable from profiles. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> sounds like you support Zac's previous idea then: packages.default :) |
38 |
|
39 |
We can easily roll packages.default into the set support that's in |
40 |
stable portage (no need for full-blown sets.conf support). Currently, in |
41 |
stable portage, we have: |
42 |
|
43 |
@world = @selected + @system |
44 |
|
45 |
How about if we add an optional @default set that's generated from |
46 |
pacakges.default in the user's profile? The @default set would be pulled |
47 |
in by @selected when @default is listed in /var/lib/portage/world_sets |
48 |
(in stable portage, @selected currently only pulls in atoms from |
49 |
/var/lib/portage/world). |
50 |
-- |
51 |
Thanks, |
52 |
Zac |