Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1643 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 05:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> What I'm advocating is that the '05 profile (fex) tag in the defaults 
> for that profile release, desktop/server agnostic, *system* 
> defaults, eg toolchain, pam, nptl, etc.  The subprofile the user 
> chooses (the desktop or server target) building upon those base 
> settngs.
> 
> Multiple inherits for profiles is the main reason I'm not pushing on 
> this; shifting desktop cruft out of the bases (my definition of base 
> mind you) requires pulling from (fex) x86/2005.1 + desktop/2005.1 .

Currently, the versioned profiles match what we use for building the
release.  The 2005.1 profile is the USE flags used to build the 2005.1
release.  This makes complete sense to me and is the way it has been
done in the past.

Making the changes that you propose would require a 2005.1/desktop
profile to be used for building GRP.  The problem with this is it would
also require that the same profile be used for building the stages.
Basically, you've taken then 2005.1 profile and made it useless, since
the stages weren't built against it anyway.  My point is pretty simple,
why should we spend a bunch of time maintaining something that is
designed from the start to be customized, and most likely won't even be
used anyway?  I would much rather stick with the "2005.1" profile
meaning "what we used to build 2005.1" than having it mean "some
variation of 2005.1 is below here and using this profile is minimal and
likely won't do what you expect".

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]