On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 9:06 PM Matías Fonzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > El 2022-05-14 10:05, DustDFG escribió: > > 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 > > Yes, kmod is needed to handle the Linux kernel modules. There is no > problem! > > In the case of "kernel/buildtree-generic", this is not essential, as it > is the build directory as it is generated from the "kernel/generic" > recipe, depicting how it was produced using our instructions/config, > also packaged so that the user as well as other software can make use of > it ("other" software that needs the Linux Kernel build-tree to build)... >
I meant exactly this > >> 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)? > > I'm sending a reply in another email, so it doesn't get too long. >
