> On 28 Dec 2022, at 18:52, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 28 Dec 2022, at 16:27, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 28 Dec 2022, at 16:04, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> - Before this commit, nothing pulls in app-alternatives/sh, so we're
>>> relying on
>>> app-shells/bash handling /bin/sh as an orphaned symlink (which is one of
>>> the big
>>> things we're trying to move away from).
>>>
>>> - Add in the others (app-alternatives/{awk,bzip2,gzip,tar}) to allow setup
>>> via /etc/portage/package.use without adding these to @world manually,
>>> this also lays the ground work for at some point removing specific
>>> implementations
>>> in the future (after making sure ebuilds which need specific impls. depend
>>> on them).
>>>
>>> - Note that there's two exceptions:
>>> 1. app-alternaitves/yacc
>>>
>>> No need to explicitly add into @system, because we previously had
>>> virtual/yacc
>>> so it'll get pulled in by ebuild dependencies anyway.
>>>
>>> 2. app-alternatives/lex
>>>
>>> We never had virtual/lex before and packages very often explicitly
>>> depend on sys-devel/flex. But this isn't a big deal given it's very
>>> unlikely
>>> that a user wants to try modify lex yet and reflex is still very new as an
>>> option in Gentoo.
>>>
>>> That is, as time goes on and we test more to ensure it works with any lex,
>>> it'll get pulled in as various ebuilds get updated anyway.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/886017
>>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/886247
>>> Signed-off-by: Sam James <s...@gentoo.org>
>>> ---
>>> profiles/base/packages | 9 ++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, I'd like to push this today to avoid users having to deal
>> with the migration "twice" if they have eselect-sh installed,
>> given app-alternatives/* got stabled yesterday/early today.
>
> After discussion in #gentoo-pms, I'm going to push this
> with only the +s (i.e. keep gzip + bzip2 in @system for now),
> as PMS at least for gzip is clear it wants GNU gzip available,
> and it says "bzip2" must be as well.
>
> I'd like to revisit this another time and see about changing that
> if appropriate, but that's tangential to the reason I'm trying to do
> this quickly (minimising impact for users).
>
> I'll open a bug so we don't forget to do that revisiting.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/888777
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
