Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind >> of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind > of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that need > from the issue of fully specifying dependencies, at least in an ideal >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Michael Mol
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 09:21:06 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are > > defined, how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? > > Defining all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Michael Mol wrote: > > I want to +1 this, but I do see one problem: If all dependencies are defined, > how does "emerge --with-bdeps=y --emptytree @world" work? Defining all > dependencies means the graph is completely cyclic. Well, we'll need

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Michael Mol
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 11:14:53 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote > > > >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > >> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-27 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 10/26/2016 11:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > This is why I think "@system" oversimplifies all of this. IMO we > should just specify all dependencies for everything (and those could > include some virtuals for convenience, like the C toolchain), and then > have different sets or virtuals for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote >> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated >> > tools are a vital part of the distro. >> >> A stage4

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Walter Dnes
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated > > tools are a vital part of the distro. > > A stage4 created (and updated) on a catalyst build farm doesn't need > to have gcc, but may

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Peter Stuge
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated > tools are a vital part of the distro. A stage4 created (and updated) on a catalyst build farm doesn't need to have gcc, but may still need libstdc++. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread waltdnes
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:05:55AM -0700, Nick Vinson wrote > Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball > has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate / > distribute a release tarball. > > However, I don't think this is the criterion used to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Peter Stuge
Raymond Jennings wrote: > Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway? I guess because it has no separate upstream. I think a separate package would be a fantastic improvement though. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-26 Thread Raymond Jennings
Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway? We already have glibc as a separate package, so why the difference? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson > wrote: > > That

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Benda Xu
Nick Vinson writes: > arguably gcc should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki > might not be 100% correct This is not true regarding libgcc* runtime libraries. Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:47:05 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote: > > That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf (arguably gcc > > should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki might

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote: > > However, I don't think this is the criterion used to determine what > should be in @system. The wiki defines the system set as the set that > "contains the software packages required for a standard Gentoo Linux >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson wrote: > That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf (arguably gcc > should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki might not be > 100% correct). gcc provides libstdc++.so.6, which is a necessary runtime

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Nick Vinson
Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate / distribute a release tarball. However, I don't think this is the criterion used to determine what should be in @system. The wiki defines the system set

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Raymond Jennings
Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/25/2016 04:01 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400 > > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > >> Looking

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:11:48 -0700 Raymond Jennings wrote: > Don't you need autoconf and automake to build a lot of packages? A lot. Once they're built, you dont need these anymore.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 10/25/2016 04:01 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a bunch of lines that are >> commented out. For example, >> >> *sys-apps/which >> #*sys-devel/autoconf >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-25 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:43:44 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a bunch of lines that are > commented out. For example, > > *sys-apps/which > #*sys-devel/autoconf > #*sys-devel/automake > *sys-devel/binutils > #*sys-devel/bison >

[gentoo-dev] Commented packages in the @system set

2016-10-24 Thread Michael Orlitzky
Looking at profiles/base/packages, I see a bunch of lines that are commented out. For example, *sys-apps/which #*sys-devel/autoconf #*sys-devel/automake *sys-devel/binutils #*sys-devel/bison #*sys-devel/flex *sys-devel/gcc Does anyone know why those are commented as opposed to