On Tuesday 06 December 2011 17:27:48 Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:06:33PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 16:52:55 Brian Harring wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 14:28:02 Zac Medico wrote: > > > > > On 12/06/2011 10:04 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > > what might be interesting is if we had a "Gentoo default" set > > > > > > which is what would come in a stage3 rather than the current > > > > > > "stage3 is the system set". then we could move virtual/ssh out > > > > > > of the system set and into the "Gentoo default" set so it'd be > > > > > > easier for people to drop/etc... but i'm not familiar enough > > > > > > with the portage support atm to say how feasible such an idea > > > > > > would be. > > > > > > > > > > Similar to how we use packages.build to define the stage1 set, we > > > > > could add a packages.default to define the stage3 set. > > > > > Alternatively, we could use a meta-package to pull in the > > > > > defaults, and adjust the stage3 build to pull in that meta-package > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > the packages.default sounds like a good idea as then we'd be able to > > > > tweak/stack it on a per-profile basis like existing files. i'll file > > > > a release bug on the topic, and then we can talk about moving > > > > virtual/ssh out of system and into that. > > > > > > We really need something generic here rather than just introducing new > > > files; this basically duplicates sets for example. > > > > sets isn't in stable portage yet, right ? and is it stackable in > > profiles ? > > Bluntly, portage set support from the tree isn't something I'm sure we > really want to support /anyways/; it's fairly portage specific last I > looked. Also, it isn't stackable from profiles.
sounds like you support Zac's previous idea then: packages.default :) -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
