On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure > for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple, > and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start defining > some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole profile tree. >
Would it actually make sense to reinvent more of the profile tree while we're at it? So, have a few categories of mixins like kernel, arch, and some category that covers really invasive stuff like hardened/libc/etc? Those might be 1-of-n selections. Then we could have the fluff that sits on top and just set some rules about what they can do. Part of me wonders if some of this could also fit in with the use of virtuals (think foo-meta virtuals but bigger). A virtual can of course pull in USE dependencies, and a lot of other stuff. We could have convenience virtuals that all the profiles pull in by default but which gets stuff like openssh out of @system. I'm only suggesting the last bit to the extent where we see tie-ins to improve the initial mix-in implementation. A lot of that is probably an expansion in scope, and to that extent I'm not suggesting that it needs to be addressed. I just want to think about it broadly at first to make sure we're not missing something. -- Rich
