On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:51 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > Anyway, as having a complete dependency tree is almost impossible > > > because of that, I have an alternative proposal: reducing the size of > > > the system package set. Right now system contains stuff like ncurses, > > > readline, zlib, autoconf, automake and m4, perl, gnuconfig, and so > > > on. Those are packages that certainly would be part of any base Gentoo > > > system, but are those actual part of the system set of packages? I > > > sincerely doubt it. > > > > for ncurses/readline, they certainly are part of the system set. that > > doesnt mean they should not show up in depend strings, it just means they > > are system packages that every Gentoo system should have installed. > > Well, one solution for some of this would be to move said things to a > "higher" level profile. Rather than have them all in base/packages, > move some to default-linux/packages (or even further down, if > appropriate). When the stages get built against these profiles, we > would end up with the complete "system" set, but other profiles > inheriting from the lower profiles like base won't have to negate > things.
i dont think Diego's goal is completely BSD driven ... so moving them from say "base" to "default-linux" doesnt quite help. they're stuck in this gray middle ground. > > i have no problem with shunting the rest. the only thing you need to > > keep in mind is that if we do move all of these things to build-only > > depend (which they are logically), then people who like to depclean their > > system would constantly be removing/adding them. > > Well, unless they were added to another profile. I think the main > reason for Diego's request is for non-Linux non-default profiles that > inherit from base. for these build-only deps, it isnt a Linux problem. it's a "any system that compiles thing from source" problem. so non-Linux systems would be just as affected. > > not really. the system package set is what went into releases and we > > wanted all of these things in our stage tarballs. it is nigh impossible > > to emerge anything on a Gentoo system without any of these packages, so > > forcing them all by default didnt cause any problems. > > Exactly. I just think that we can still accomplish what Diego is asking > by shifting where things get added to "system" in the profiles. The > end-result would be the same (for default Linux installs) but everybody > else would have a cleaner common base from which to start. sure, i'm not arguing for the status quo. but i'm not also not arguing for stripping them all (which would make Diego happy i imagine). i wonder if the profiles frags we talked about a while ago is the only real solution and shuffling packages around in the meantime is only a temporary (and fragile) workaround. > > i'd say quite the opposite ... requiring perl in system blows. it's > > there for two reasons: autotools and openssl. but both are build time > > requirements only. > > Indeed. We ended up having to get perl into the stage1 because of > exactly these problems. It sucks. I'd love to be able to remove perl > (and anything else not necessarily required) out of the base system set. > If they're required in other profiles, they should be added in said > profiles. i often debate simply chucking the perl build requirements of openssl in favor of autoconf ... maybe i'll set up a git tree on Gentoo's git for this ... i think that'd solve the "perl required in stages" issue ? > > > So there are more things that were brought to my attention, like ssh, > > > flex, bison, e2fsprogs, and so on. We should probably look into what to > > > keep, rather than what to remove. > > > > flex/bison are in the exact same boat as autotools. dont know why you > > separated them out. openssh and e2fsprogs are part of the system set > > because every Gentoo system out there should have them installed. if you > > dont like it, feel free to tweak your files locally, but to attempt to > > account for a few people at the detriment of 99.9% of the people out > > there makes no sense at all. > > Well, openssh has always been questionable. Sure, *I* think it should > be on any Gentoo system I'd want to touch, but it really isn't necessary > for a lot of people. Moving this to, say, the "server" profiles only > would be acceptable to me, but then again, so is leaving it how it is > now. i'd argue pretty vehemently against removing openssh from any default official Gentoo install. ssh is defacto standard for loginning into any other machines. it should be on all Gentoo desktops/severs/etc... specialized/embedded/whatever are certainly free to cull openssh (and doing so is actually beyond trivial). whether we express this requirement in base/ or frags or something is certainly open for discussion, but i believe removing it from a stage3 in any of our standard releases is a huge disservice to everyone. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
