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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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