Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:36:28
Message-Id: CAGfcS_nMN0qiqbEUG=gi4ZneE+CZEsfwQJk072pQqtN=nVSGng@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method by "M. J. Everitt"
1 On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
2 >
3 > Nor is GPG at present either .. in case you start having more thoughts
4 > about increasing @system's scope (enjoy the bikeshed on that).
5 >
6
7 If we are going to do this might I suggest that it would be nice to
8 create a new set for things that we want to be present by default, but
9 which are not part of @system.
10
11 Some things like a libc virtual make more sense in @system. You can't
12 run without them, and devs don't want to specify them as dependencies
13 (though I personally think we'd be better served by making them
14 explicit deps anyway).
15
16 However, there are always things like editors, sshd, and now
17 gpg/git/etc that are sensible defaults, but there really is no harm if
18 you uninstall them and no reason to give them special treatment for
19 parallel builds or dependency specifications. So, having an
20 additional set would make sense. This set would be part of the stage3
21 and livecd, but could be more easily uninstalled without as many scary
22 warnings, and dependencies would have to be explicit, and parallel
23 builds would work fine.
24
25 So, how is that for a bikeshed?
26
27 --
28 Rich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org>