From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JCiij-00061W-IS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:44:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC33EE07C4; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D32FE07C4 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A282065310; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:42:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reducing the size of the system package set Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:42:36 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Chris Gianelloni References: <200801091551.31922.vapier@gentoo.org> <1199913217.8082.71.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> In-Reply-To: <1199913217.8082.71.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3139289.VU2gtaoxz5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200801091642.37591.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 81c6fa17-7231-4589-a76d-8ea222d9adcf X-Archives-Hash: a11cdecaf1922c6dcd51f0be6bacf6d5 --nextPart3139289.VU2gtaoxz5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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 th= ey > > 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= =20 say "base" to "default-linux" doesnt quite help. they're stuck in this gra= y=20 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 the= ir > > 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 tha= t=20 compiles thing from source" problem. so non-Linux systems would be just as= =20 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= =20 stripping them all (which would make Diego happy i imagine). i wonder if t= he=20 profiles frags we talked about a while ago is the only real solution and=20 shuffling packages around in the meantime is only a temporary (and fragile)= =20 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 fa= vor=20 of autoconf ... maybe i'll set up a git tree on Gentoo's git for this ... i= =20 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 y= ou > > 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 offic= ial=20 Gentoo install. ssh is defacto standard for loginning into any other=20 machines. it should be on all Gentoo desktops/severs/etc... =20 specialized/embedded/whatever are certainly free to cull openssh (and doing= =20 so is actually beyond trivial). whether we express this requirement in bas= e/=20 or frags or something is certainly open for discussion, but i believe=20 removing it from a stage3 in any of our standard releases is a huge=20 disservice to everyone. =2Dmike --nextPart3139289.VU2gtaoxz5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJHhT/NAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBlGMP/0XemsebBQyhjSW86s77ho8k yK/A9Ntmq0bZbd792Avn2gDzu7+2/ZxLqonfiUrX7xfABGjP+yBD8qMDY0yN5DR6 6NsJJnBp9zXvpCInX3HwgBWkO2Y15H1cAYnoUBjW1Xy2prab4u189yHpCcpg1dOG Mb0K44zERPUGk5WLsaR41YEJxVnNhh+pnCJWUTyBmbHd0HyClNajGahMJXgXTy5v mI79B03Ercq+UdxyUHR9aUC3XXsfKlcEQT7bx8FRWNIgKjI7SKeawZBQuNgaGadt Iz/IlUDl/wmU+i4wOe/ewdFpYDwKqZPqps9AiCDj76D++g4FqfP8io+TWfMHgEZB 2+eu8W5YlLSW0SmfB5qCX45ugs/nuAstVSJ/yqndiRIsT3ht43adB1olo2Ws2AIk mIlseqt1ZdUW+HD+yfAVJR/o3FesPgLw0YL7dWkdp8olWbHFh58SnYyoI7pp5rUb ooYbOGbaDzCe14YB9DMP9uJp32cFLbArZ5TwRKdlGePUVKhC92A7rwSk0i7odg7q mAlKcX1UfjBTYGFv4/auVT2EqcZP6PnSgBlE8ICbcEA3e6nVXtsTddS/Ej770zeC vrhTzh6b4IA5gWcYXuU0whzUbNDjRr4tmqQdbfm2yyWb3PkqOciczYFW/tM6792x 5OoYnM5yfFtcJ65AfYKQ =TaR1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3139289.VU2gtaoxz5-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list