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

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2332 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0400, warnera6@egr.msu.edu wrote:
>  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.

What?  I was saying that *we* shouldn't have to waste *our* time making
profiles we won't use.  End of discussion.  If you want a
"warner6-wuz-here" profile under default-linux/x86 that turned off all
the USE flags and only enabled USE="yes-I-really-only-want-this-one-USE"
then you could.  We won't stop you, nor will we care to stop you.  We
wouldn't even complain.

> 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

No.  *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time.  I care
about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the
release.  If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care.

That being said, I wouldn't want anyone changing the profile I used to
build the release.

If I do a stage3 today and a stage3 tomorrow, both using the same
profile, then do an "emerge gnome" on each, I would expect it to have
the same USE flags.  This is a simple matter of reproducibility and
predictability.

> 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,

I am really shooting for predictability with the profiles that are
managed by releng.

> you could also do default-linux/x86/2005.1/release or whatnot if you want
> to maintain that as well.

Why?  Would you not expect the 2005.1 Handbook plus the 2005.1 media
plus the 2005.1 profile to produce a 2005.1 system?  Why would I need a
"release" sub-profile to distinguish it as a release?  Is that not
completely redundant?

-- 
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 --]