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 1EA5fR-0004Lj-2u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:56:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UCrN6p015571; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:53:23 GMT Received: from smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UCngFN011709 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:49:43 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j7UCrSn2022212 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:53:28 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:51:40 -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: <20050829223411.GF13987@nightcrawler> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829223411.GF13987@nightcrawler> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-rknxTJz3zlrg7X0I1R55" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:51:39 -0400 Message-Id: <1125406300.1964.189.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: 117348cf-cca6-46b0-81ab-468ec0e1abc2 X-Archives-Hash: e068ea59cdcb413bc634408435817079 --=-rknxTJz3zlrg7X0I1R55 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing=20 > 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*=20 > of stuff, use flags mainly, to get it back down to a minimal profile. =20 > That's what I mean by lack of customization; it can be done, but it's=20 > not optimal, vs say inheriting a base default/x86/2005.1 that holds=20 > 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=20 > tag in -* to the use, and add the use flags I explicitly want; that's=20 > not really the best way to use the profiles inheritance capabilities=20 > 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=20 > > > reason; the 2005.1 profile (fex) is probably *rarely* ran exactly as=20 > > > y'all have it specified considering we do have user level use flags,=20 > > > tweaking the hell out of '05.1. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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 geare= d > > 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=20 > after sticking a level of indirection, a subprofile into the releng=20 > profile inheritance chain so that if I *want* a minimal profile (as=20 > you use), I can get it without having to resort to -* and tracking all=20 > 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=20 > 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=20 > > > emails, multiple inheritance I tend to think is required to minimize=20 > > > the work for y'all; what I want you guys to do (or I'll do myself) is= =20 > > > chunk the suckers up so people after a minimal base for running=20 > > > it themselves, or building up their own subprofile can do so. Not=20 > > > after jamming maintenance nightmares on you, which without multiple=20 > > > inheritance, might be a bit. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Agreed, although I'd posit that when/if multiple inheritance is added,=20 > y'all take advantage of it (break up the settings into base and=20 > desktop) so that others can use your base work instead of reinventing=20 > the wheel. That would be fine by me. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-rknxTJz3zlrg7X0I1R55 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) iD8DBQBDFFZbkT4lNIS36YERAot+AJ98mSbMFlKmiVXEk46ih9ajdQg2IgCgo5Wm cjfXLcJGawypdzpcNtEgC/w= =P2VC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-rknxTJz3zlrg7X0I1R55-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list