On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 6:08 AM DustDFG <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 am sorry, it was a mistake. I found that kernel/generic depends on kernel/kmod > 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)?
