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

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5084 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> Basically stating that if I want the minimal 2005.1 x86 profile to 
> build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing 
> default-linux/x86/2005.1 ;

Ehh... There *is* no minimal 2005.1 profile.  That has always been the
point.  The "2005.1" profile is "what we used for 2005.1" not "minimal
set of bull that can build a machine on x86 that just happens to
coincide with the 2005.1 release".  If you want a "minimal" profile,
make one.

> Why?  Mainly due to the fact that I would be forced to reverse a *lot* 
> of stuff, use flags mainly, to get it back down to a minimal profile.  
> That's what I mean by lack of customization; it can be done, but it's 
> not optimal, vs say inheriting a base default/x86/2005.1 that holds 
> just system defaults (pam, cflags, etc).

USE flags *only*, actually.

Also, we haven't been building the profiles to be "optimal" for
customization.  We have been building them to "just work" for the most
people.

> If I were to implement a server profile from existing, I'd probably 
> tag in -* to the use, and add the use flags I explicitly want; that's 
> not really the best way to use the profiles inheritance capabilities 
> though :)

I'll agree with you here.  Like I said, the x86 profile stuff, since *at
least* 2004.0's and the beginning of cascades, has had all of this
"cruft" in there already.

Of course, I also don't think that a server profile should inherit from
the current default-linux sub-profiles anyway, as they are more geared
towards end-user machines, and instead should inherit from default-linux
(possibly, maybe even just base) themselves and build up a very specific
configuration for servers.  Basically, you're saying that a whole ton of
crap should be under default-linux, where I think nothing should really
be under there except for the "default" profiles, and other profiles
should have their own top-level, just like hardened or uclibc does.

> > > Profile customization occurs, /etc/portage/profiles exists for this 
> > > reason; the 2005.1 profile (fex) is probably *rarely* ran exactly as 
> > > y'all have it specified considering we do have user level use flags, 
> > > tweaking the hell out of '05.1.
> > 
> > You would be surprised at the number of people that use GRP and rarely,
> > if ever, change their USE flags.  I wish I had numbers, but I don't.
> > 
> > Anyway, the default set of USE flags seems to be a pretty perfect mix
> > for most people.  It gives packages that work as expected, and is geared
> > toward a desktop system.  Without any more specific examples of what
> > you're trying to point out, I'm just not seeing it.
> Key thing to note, neither of us have figures :)
> Beyond that, I'm not after castrating the defaults that exist, I'm 
> after sticking a level of indirection, a subprofile into the releng 
> profile inheritance chain so that if I *want* a minimal profile (as 
> you use), I can get it without having to resort to -* and tracking all 
> of the changes myself.

I have no problem with that.  Check out profiles/default-linux/x86/dev
and see if it would meet your needs.  It does *not* inherit from x86,
but from default-linux, so it is geared to be an "x86" replacement.
This would keep everything else in the sub-profiles, such as 2005.1,
etc.

Basically, if you wanted a server profile, you'd inherit from
profiles/default-linux/x86, not profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1, since
the 2005.1 profile would have all the desktop stuff.

> It's a time saving effort; add multiple inheritance in, and it's easy 
> to do (win/win).

Agreed.  With multiple inheritance, we all win, but see if this at least
helps for now.  I have no problem right now making the changes necessary
(to x86, at least) to make the base arch profile "minimal" for you.

> > > Aside from mild disagreement on views, as was stated in previous 
> > > emails, multiple inheritance I tend to think is required to minimize 
> > > the work for y'all; what I want you guys to do (or I'll do myself) is 
> > > chunk the suckers up so people after a minimal base for running 
> > > it themselves, or building up their own subprofile can do so.  Not 
> > > after jamming maintenance nightmares on you, which without multiple 
> > > inheritance, might be a bit.
> > 
> > I know that I won't be spending *my* time making any profile other than
> > the defaults used for building the release.  Anyone is welcome to build
> > profiles for anything else that they might want, but since the release
> > team doesn't use it, we shouldn't be forced to waste our time on it.
> 
> Agreed, although I'd posit that when/if multiple inheritance is added, 
> y'all take advantage of it (break up the settings into base and 
> desktop) so that others can use your base work instead of reinventing 
> the wheel.

That would be fine by me.

-- 
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 --]