Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Brian mentioned /etc/portage/profile and other fun portage tricks
to mess with the default profile. If you think the profile shouldn't be
changed then don't make it a mutable option. If you think that bugs
where people fubared their profile are a problem then write a tool to
print out that information and have the user present it to you when they
file the bug.
What? I was saying that *we* shouldn't have to waste *our* time making
profiles we won't use. End of discussion. If you want a
"warner6-wuz-here" profile under default-linux/x86 that turned off all
the USE flags and only enabled USE="yes-I-really-only-want-this-one-USE"
then you could. We won't stop you, nor will we care to stop you. We
wouldn't even complain.
As far as maintainability, you could always make a profile outside of the
default-linux tree ( default-gentoo/* ) and construct the
smaller/faster/better profiles there. That means anyone that wants to
No. *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time. I care
about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the
release. If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care.
and *I* can't make a tree-wide server profile because *I* don't have a)
commit access and b) a minimal profile to derive from other than
default-linux, and thats yours and you said you will not let it be
changed. Plus default-linux is far too minimal. So *I* have to jump on
-dev and convince others ( not necessarily you, mind ) that a profile of
this nature is a good idea, so *I* don't end up having to duplicate tons
of work making a default profile for every arch I run.
That being said, I wouldn't want anyone changing the profile I used to
build the release.
If I do a stage3 today and a stage3 tomorrow, both using the same
profile, then do an "emerge gnome" on each, I would expect it to have
the same USE flags. This is a simple matter of reproducibility and
predictability.
customize can change the symlink and you ( releng ) still get your
pristine release profiles ( which IMHO is a silly notion, but I don't
manage your bugs, so whichever way you like ;) ). Going on that notion,
I am really shooting for predictability with the profiles that are
managed by releng.
you could also do default-linux/x86/2005.1/release or whatnot if you want
to maintain that as well.
Why? Would you not expect the 2005.1 Handbook plus the 2005.1 media
plus the 2005.1 profile to produce a 2005.1 system? Why would I need a
"release" sub-profile to distinguish it as a release? Is that not
completely redundant?
The plan with having a release sub-profile was making the
default-linux/${ARCH}/${RELEASE}/ a minimal profile and then have the
/release subprofile be 'normal', and taking a second look really no
different from a "desktop" subprofile other than better naming.
as far as profiles, there is no documentation that I can find on who
'owns' profiles and does work on them. Sorry if you end up doing all
the work on default-linux, I will focus my efforts elsewhere if that is
the case. I just know that for the majority of profiles
default-linux/arch is what most of them inherit from, so thats where the
party started ;)
-Alec Warner (antarus)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
