From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32493 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2004 13:55:10 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Jul 2004 13:55:10 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bivpx-0004cv-IA for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:54:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 30511 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jul 2004 13:54:46 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 17742 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2004 13:54:45 +0000 From: Chris Gianelloni Reply-To: wolf31o2@gentoo.org To: gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1089380082.32612.3.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> References: <1089375713.8755.5.camel@antares.hausnetz> <1089380082.32612.3.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-eNtrfN3SyIoMFkoDADrP" Organization: Gentoo Linux Message-Id: <1089384178.11036.43.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:42:59 -0400 Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] x86 2004.2 Profile X-Archives-Salt: 5242d692-67b8-4967-ba7e-23fbe03fe5dd X-Archives-Hash: 809f60e2c9abe2b9ce6d0f77239a06c4 --=-eNtrfN3SyIoMFkoDADrP Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 09:34, John Davis wrote: > Is this that necessary? Why couldn't we merge this stuff into the > default 2004.0 profile? It would impact more users that way (and even > more if it was integrated into the 1.4 profile). With stackable profiles > on their way (the only blocker now is the bootstrap script which is > being worked on), does it make sense to create yet another profile? For consitency's sake, yes, it is necessary. I don't want to build a machine today using the 2004.0 profile and build a machine tomorrow using *the same profile* and have one using xfree and one using xorg-x11. It also diminishes the number of bugs that will crop up from confused users. Personally, I believe that a profile should never be changed once it is created, as it introduces many of those "undocumented changes" that our users are starting to get tired of seeing. We have an obligation to our users. A 24K profile being added to the portage tree will not kill us. Hopefully, we'll be getting rid of all of the "legacy" profiles in the future, and this profile will be deleted, but for now, I think it is absolutely necessary. I also think that this needs to be discussed on -dev and not -core, which is why I sent my emails there, as this directly impacts our users and is something I am sure they're interested in. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer Gentoo Linux Is your power animal a penguin? --=-eNtrfN3SyIoMFkoDADrP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBA7q7wkT4lNIS36YERAlUVAJ9tE3Ufmpms1qAVSwM+ZBbcsFW/WgCglc0b YludSryYm+0wWWle0nrnbG0= =06ws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-eNtrfN3SyIoMFkoDADrP--