On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:31 PM, W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
In a similar vein, would releng be open to moving stage1/2/3 package
sets to virtual packages or package sets?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:13:45AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
For stage1 and stage2 the *order* we build packages is relevant.
Is this really true? The stage1 is being built with ROOT, so it's
only using the seed stage3 packages. It's hard to have cyclic
dependencies when you're
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:31:16PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
May I suggest an alternative? We could implement sys-virtual/posix and
make it depend on all packages that are not necessary for @system, but
are necessary for proper POSIX compliance. Then we can tell users who
need/want an
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
In a similar vein, would releng be open to moving stage1/2/3 package
sets to virtual packages or package sets? Presently they are inside
catalyst, and I think this would clean things up a lot.
They're already in the Portage tree
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:31 PM, W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
In a similar vein, would releng be open to moving stage1/2/3 package
sets to virtual packages or package sets? Presently they are inside
catalyst, and I
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:45:37PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
Obviously this entails work on somebody's part, but would it still
make sense to make the stage build process more generic along the
lines Robin suggested? That is, instead of having 3 specific places
we use to generate a