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 1E9rIs-0001UC-3j for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:36:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7TLXpAL007854; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:33:51 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7TLWAC2025047 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:32:11 GMT Received: from www.egr.msu.edu (merovingian [35.9.37.132]) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7TLY8M9011939 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user warnera6) by www.egr.msu.edu with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1125351253.warnera6.squirrel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1125341929.1964.125.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <28B2A791-A149-4B58-86D8-8DD349D081E5@gentoo.org> <1125331147.1964.100.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <1125339012.5545.7.camel@localhost> <1125341929.1964.125.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles From: warnera6@egr.msu.edu To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4 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 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Archives-Salt: 9ce2f506-6cfd-4253-b9ea-7f37ec83053a X-Archives-Hash: b6cb0767abd4e00f571594cb0b519e8e > On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:10 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:59 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> > As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the amount of work >> > necessary in maintaining them. As it was back then, it required >> changes >> > to an extremely large number of profiles every time a change was made >> to >> > the default USE flags. > >> Just a crazy idea - why not create a package containing some profiles? >> You can use the default profile, and if you want a different profile, >> "emerge portage-profiles" or whatever it is called and use that. I guess >> I've missed something obvious here? > > How exactly would updating a ton of profiles, making a tarball of them, > uploading the new tarball, waiting for it to hit the mirrors, then > updating the ebuild in portage be easier to maintain than just > maintaining the profiles directly in the tree? > >> > I honestly don't think it would be a good idea >> > to forget the lessons of the past and start bloating the profiles with >> > tons of "desktop" and "server" profiles, among anything else people >> > would want. After all, as soon as we did a "desktop" profile, then we >> > would have requests for "gnome" and "kde" sub-profiles. > >> which are not much work if kde = desktop -gtk -gnome +kde > > Once there is multiple inheritance, I see this being easier. I still > think it is going to be a waste of time for us to maintain them, > however. Especially since *NO MEDIA* will be built against *any* of > them except the default. > >> > As I stated earlier, it's easier to not provide *any* than to try to >> > provide all of the ones that will inevitably be requested as soon as >> we >> > start adding them. >> Or provide them in an extra ebuild that throws lots of warnings so that >> any users that don't read the warnings can be RESOLVED WONTFIXed? > > You're more than welcome to do this. *I* would just WONTFIX it anyway > and not add *any* superfluous profiles just to appease some lazy users. > The current profiles are built to be used *as is* for doing GRP > installations. If the user doesn't like a flag or two, then they change > it themselves. We don't need to get into the business of determining > what should and should not be enabled on user's systems because we would > *never* be able to make people happy. > 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. 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 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, you could also do default-linux/x86/2005.1/release or whatnot if you want to maintain that as well. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list