Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:08:12 +0200 as excerpted: > Reducing @system may be a goal but it should be a *reasonable* goal. Not > reducing because we can reduce but because it is bloated with unneeded > software. > > We shouldn't even try to go below POSIX system requirements; we > shouldn't remove standard Linux stuff (from Linux profiles, at least) > either. And I believe toolchain belongs to @system as well; or at least > the C99 compiler. > > And for a reasonable Gentoo toolchain, pkg-config is a must-have. At > least since we deprecated and are seriously fighting libtool.
I think I see the problem. Unsurprisingly it's a terminology definition mismatch problem, as so many are. =:^\ The reduce @system idea considers it a simple set of packages that are treated specially, and that exists to some degree for legacy reasons (back when gentoo was first being created, it was just easier to do it that way). The (obviously long-term) goal would be to eliminate @system with its currently special treatment entirely, including POSIX components. That may not be possible, but reducing it substantially should be. But we're not talking actually removing packages from a default gentoo install, just increasing the number of packages that are directly specified depends and removing them from the @system _set_, until there's very little if anything left to it. Thus, not adding it to @system in no way means it's not considered mandatory for a normal install, it just means the ultimate goal is to have all the deps specified and nothing left in @system, and while progress isn't fast by a long shot, the first thing is to ensure we're not regressing! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
