måndag 23 januari 2017 kl. 13:56:02 CET skrev Rich Freeman: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic infrastructure > > for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to keep it simple, > > and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able to start defining > > some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole profile tree. > > Would it actually make sense to reinvent more of the profile tree > while we're at it? So, have a few categories of mixins like kernel, > arch, and some category that covers really invasive stuff like > hardened/libc/etc? > i think it would make sense to reinvent/split it up to a few categories/mixins like base arch abi libc kernel init/udev desktop server security
> Those might be 1-of-n selections. > > Then we could have the fluff that sits on top and just set some rules > about what they can do. > > Part of me wonders if some of this could also fit in with the use of > virtuals (think foo-meta virtuals but bigger). A virtual can of > course pull in USE dependencies, and a lot of other stuff. We could > have convenience virtuals that all the profiles pull in by default but > which gets stuff like openssh out of @system. > > I'm only suggesting the last bit to the extent where we see tie-ins to > improve the initial mix-in implementation. A lot of that is probably > an expansion in scope, and to that extent I'm not suggesting that it > needs to be addressed. I just want to think about it broadly at first > to make sure we're not missing something.
