On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> 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
