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

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3778 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> >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.

> and *I* can't make a tree-wide server profile because *I* don't have a) 
> commit access and b) a minimal profile to derive from other than 
> default-linux, and thats yours and you said you will not let it be 
> changed.  Plus default-linux is far too minimal.  So *I* have to jump on 
> -dev and convince others ( not necessarily you, mind ) that a profile of 
> this nature is a good idea, so *I* don't end up having to duplicate tons 
> of work making a default profile for every arch I run.

a) not my problem... ;]
b) default-linux isn't mine... default-linux/x86/2005.1 is... get the
distinction now?

A server profile should be separate anyway.  It shouldn't have
*anything* to do with the release profiles, since we aren't releasing
it.  This seems to be the point everyone is missing.  There's nothing
stopping anyone from making as many profiles to do as many things as
they want, I simply ask them to not muck with the release's dated
profiles.

> >>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?
> >  
> >
> The plan with having a release sub-profile was making the 
> default-linux/${ARCH}/${RELEASE}/ a minimal profile and then have the 
> /release subprofile be 'normal', and taking a second look really no 
> different from a "desktop" subprofile other than better naming.

No.

I have no problem with making the default-linux/${ARCH} profile minimal,
as I tend to agree that it should be, but the dated profiles should
match what is released.  Doing anything else really is plain asinine as
the "2005.1" stage tarball should match the "2005.1" profile.  Or would
you rather we start calling the tarballs "2005.1-release", which is
*really* redundant?

> as far as profiles, there is no documentation that I can find on who 
> 'owns' profiles and does work on them.  Sorry if you end up doing all

Nobody really "owns" them, at all.  In general, the arch teams maintain
their own.  Nobody touches default-linux unless absolutely necessary.
For the x86 profiles, releng has been maintaining them since it was
born, with a few people interjecting fixes here and there.

> the work on default-linux, I will focus my efforts elsewhere if that is 
> the case.  I just know that for the majority of profiles 
> default-linux/arch is what most of them inherit from, so thats where the 
> party started ;)

Most of the profiles are also based on the idea of being modifications
or extensions from the release's profiles.  You're talking about
something completely divergent.

Notice something with me.  When you look for the hardened profiles, you
don't look under profiles/default-linux/${ARCH}/${RELEASE}/hardened, do
you?  Why not?  Because they're divergent enough that doing the
inheritance from a release profile makes it more work than not.  It's
really that simple.  Nobody would have a problem with them using
profiles/default-linux/${ARCH}/${RELEASE}/hardened.  They don't because
it doesn't make sense for them to do so.  I tend to think any "server"
profiles would fall under the same thinking.

-- 
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 --]