Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nick Vinson <nvinson234@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:06:11
Message-Id: 81c613cf-1fc5-0795-828a-b12cf003d615@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set by Raymond Jennings
1 Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball
2 has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate /
3 distribute a release tarball.
4
5 However, I don't think this is the criterion used to determine what
6 should be in @system. The wiki defines the system set as the set that
7 "contains the software packages required for a standard Gentoo Linux
8 installation to run properly".
9
10 That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf (arguably gcc
11 should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki might not be
12 100% correct).
13
14 -Nicholas Vinson
15
16 On 10/25/2016 07:11 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
17 > Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages?
18 >
19 > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o
20 > <mailto:k_f@g.o>> wrote:
21 >
22 > On 10/25/2016 04:01 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
23 > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400
24 > > Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o <mailto:mjo@g.o>> wrote:
25 > >
26 > >> Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a bunch of lines that are
27 > >> commented out. For example,
28 > >>
29 > >> *sys-apps/which
30 > >> #*sys-devel/autoconf
31 > >> #*sys-devel/automake
32 > >> *sys-devel/binutils
33 > >> #*sys-devel/bison
34 > >> #*sys-devel/flex
35 > >> *sys-devel/gcc
36 > >>
37 > >> Does anyone know why those are commented as opposed to just.. not
38 > >> there?
39 > >
40 > >
41 > > Those used to be in @system and were dropped at some point once ebuilds
42 > > had proper deps. My guess would be ppl wanted to keep them commented
43 > > out just in case it appeared to be a bad idea to drop them and be able
44 > > to "revert" easily. Nowadays, we can probably assume it was ok :)
45 > >
46 >
47 > Indeed, to avoid confusion I'd suggest cleaning it up unless base-system
48 > or QA has any objections.
49 >
50 > --
51 > Kristian Fiskerstrand
52 > OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
53 > <http://pool.sks-keyservers.net>
54 > fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
55 >
56 >

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies