1 |
On 29/08/2016 21:08, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:04:08 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> I remember someone (Dale?) some time ago being dismayed at the large |
5 |
>> number of packages that would be installed by emerge @system. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> Now I see what he meant: on this box 401 of the 1103 installed |
8 |
>> packages. I'd like to construct a set that would create a reliable |
9 |
>> basis for building the rest of @system and @world. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> I have a small rescue system on the same disk, also ~amd64, which |
12 |
>> doesn't have X or any desktop programs but otherwise is configured for |
13 |
>> the same setup. Would it be sensible to use the 44 packages in that |
14 |
>> @system as a new set @sysbase on the main system, or would I miss |
15 |
>> something important? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Surely the addition of X, and maybe kde or gnome, to your USE flags is |
18 |
> what is causing so many packages to be pulled in by @system. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I found something similar when building a new system recently, @system |
21 |
> pulled in X and a shedload of dependencies. Switching to a non-desktop |
22 |
> profile meant far fewer packages were needed to get a basic system. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
Don't forget that @system only lives in a context, and the context is a |
27 |
real computer. |
28 |
|
29 |
Out of context it's just a list of strings. In context, it's strings |
30 |
that means packages, with deps and everything else that needs to be |
31 |
built for @system to mean anything on the machine it's added to. |
32 |
|
33 |
One never needs to define @system, that is already done in a profile so |
34 |
it's not something that means sense to migrate or re-use elsewhere. |
35 |
Don't worry about @system, worry about USE and get that right. Emerge |
36 |
will deal with what it takes to give the user the @system he's really |
37 |
asking for. |
38 |
|
39 |
Or maybe I don't completely understand yet Peter's actual question. |
40 |
|
41 |
Alan |