From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840B21381F4 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B01EE0978; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C45FE08F9 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1803333bkw.40 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:11:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KzApJqG2vEpMk/c3F64vIezHWzXTPyk5wujGZc/WM8M=; b=UgG21BdL2NSO2tdv4vBDDYWlTJTUutnYqaLiOoznHlHPdqnToAvxTg0Y5RqAOjWGxJ IuR0gRv0MRkRfzDp1PWKNRHT/BzgpFov1Jl9+2e8q8V+MK+amGeiR0cmHReKJxjJLCEZ 1H6bUdXq7zY1R7CjZ+QymOrxwJmqDzfM9qLMArIMlD7NUEoDDI6kaHvA/xq/z9HK4HUX MLL+lgwbmOD3UIw0NZN5q9HlO0UlcXNY2P3nmaBViLP2DCTEHMDOCGgKGXsjNF4RI8Pq LJrXY6BzW6RgTlUluEYWRj5yydanhcIpQotdFTC/jIhSrOyusWJXoSfG0AJCMBbnP+X6 97sQ== 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 Received: by 10.204.133.193 with SMTP id g1mr2611774bkt.2.1345252311337; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.25.8 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:11:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120815125832.39c72a82@pomiocik.lan> <20120815110757.GV10705@gentoo.org> <20120815114153.GX10705@gentoo.org> <20120815120131.GY10705@gentoo.org> <20120815140413.GA10705@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:11:51 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] remove system set? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: cb147406-341c-4d42-8cb8-c47cf2f16bf1 X-Archives-Hash: 969ec367505147dcadd9744911272045 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> Bootstrapping is an inherently curious problem. Most systems are built >> upon the systems they themselves build, but getting to that >> self-hosting state always requires some unclean solution. > > Yup, I never viewed getting rid of @system as a solution to the > bootstrapping problem. You could even have an @stage3 set for > convenience, or a meta-virtual to create one, using a fully > functioning Gentoo system. I also wasn't suggesting we have empty > stage3s or anything like that. By all means supply a default > collection of packages, and feel free to include openssh in that > collection. However, those default packages would be nothing more > than a starting point and users could uninstall them at will. Perhaps > portage would have some set it would offer a warning before > uninstalling (either a hardcoded list like @system, or use logic like > any dep of portage or gcc). Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. It does depend on having dependency logic fully expressed, and not dependent on @system as an inherent dependency. But that's something that ought to be a long-term goal, not a short-term goal, just based on the amount of work required to get there, and possibly the work required to maintain it. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure portage already does offer a warning when you might unmerge a package that's in @system; on a fresh install, the first --depclean will try to remove nano, and portage warns the user. -- :wq