From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E9n0n-0004ht-IV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:01:33 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7TGwMI1001804; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:58:22 GMT Received: from smtp04.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7TGspv6000545 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:54:51 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp04.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j7TGvcKc002346 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:57:38 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-E/ttK1zHYxR9GjULX1gY" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 X-Archives-Salt: af22c1cc-d9be-4442-8b86-a12c086359fb X-Archives-Hash: 1115ab441bb3a571ad628762af0c6a31 --=-E/ttK1zHYxR9GjULX1gY Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > for that profile release, desktop/server agnostic, *system*=20 > defaults, eg toolchain, pam, nptl, etc. The subprofile the user=20 > chooses (the desktop or server target) building upon those base=20 > settngs. >=20 > Multiple inherits for profiles is the main reason I'm not pushing on=20 > this; shifting desktop cruft out of the bases (my definition of base=20 > 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". --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-E/ttK1zHYxR9GjULX1gY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDEz5CkT4lNIS36YERAgYIAKDFuHkoocnhswROkSluwNZKkLKe7QCgo32w GHAtL4Bw3CxYLh+9lhYbhKc= =To5h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-E/ttK1zHYxR9GjULX1gY-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list