On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:18 PM Matias Fonzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > El 2022-05-13 13:51, DustDFG escribió: > > Hello! > > > > I started to get confused in a lot of ghosts of previous messages so I > > decided to delete them > > > >> > >> The package names will look to something like (sorry, I am not at > >> Dragora right now): > >> > >> [email protected] > >> [email protected] > >> [email protected] (with the category > >> renamed) > >> > > > > I wanted to say that we will give: > > > > category/package-name > > > > essential/kernel-generic (now at kernel category) > > essential/kernel-headers (now at kernel category) > > essential/firmware (now at kernel category) > > > > kernel/buildtree-generic > > kernel/kmod > > > > I don't think that it is a so good idea but what do you think about > > making > > the kernel category as subcategory for essential? > > Sounds good, the subcategory can be package_name@essential_kernel.tlz > and we don't need add more code, except for those third-party tools that > tries to guess the second category. >
In this case we will give situation when two packages (kmod and buildtree-generic) are part of essential category hierarchy but in the same time they aren't part of minimal system. I also think that we can make an exception for kernel category and not to change it. So we will get essential category that contains everything for the minimal system except the kernel. It is obvious that system needs kernel for running so it isn't so necessary to point out it. In this case, hypothetical essential.order file will process only packages from these two categories and it looks logical. What do you think about it? What do you like more (subcategory or exception for kernel category or maybe something else)?
