From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13915 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 00:55:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 21 Jul 2004 00:55:34 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bn5OP-0000ax-9j for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:55:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 23307 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2004 00:55:32 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 13084 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 00:55:32 +0000 From: Dylan Carlson Reply-To: absinthe@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:54:57 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040720131405.GW18023@mail.lieber.org> <40FDB868.8070404@engr.orst.edu> In-Reply-To: <40FDB868.8070404@engr.orst.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407202054.57785.absinthe@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting GLEP 19 X-Archives-Salt: c6da0963-e5cc-4f98-bdfd-e725c3dcb250 X-Archives-Hash: 4a5772e75d1df0a85c633de6e471c28a On Tuesday 20 July 2004 8:27 pm, Michael Marineau wrote: > ~From the looks of the thread so far people seem to be leaning toward > implimenting this system via profiles rather than the suggested new > keyword system in the GLEP. Hopefully nobody is leaning towards anything yet; myself I want all the options out on the table, so we can talk about it. If anything we might be eliminating ideas that paint us into a corner, or ones we can't reasonably execute sometime in the next 6-12 months. > 1. Users dealing with profiles would need to be able to be easily > change, and review the possible profiles via a nice interface so that > when that quartly switch comes, it isn't to hard to understand what is > going on. Interface? It wouldn't differ from how upgrades are currently performed. - Change your profile to a newer one - emerge -pv system - emerge -pv world - modify make.conf, /etc/portage/* to taste - and so on > 2. This will require a bit of a paradigm shift in users. At the moment > it seems ~ (in the eyes of a normal user) like profiles are something in > the background of the system, but no one other than gentoo devs need > know what they are or how to use them. This is just my impression. Release numbers basically correspond to profiles. So most people understand this, at that level. Profiles as they are used right now are inclusion masks, but do not address the functionality I'm/we're proposing in this thread. > 3. If a profile defines a specific set of packages that should not be > upgraded how are the possible security upgrades handled? If the profile > defines package versions then the profile would need to be modified. > From my understanding a stable profile normally should not be modified, > but maybe this will change? Depends on how the package is versioned in the profile. E.g. if you have glibc-2.3.2-r2 installed, and your profile has: =sys-libs/glibc-2.3.2 You will get glibc-2.3.2-r3 and any other updates, but not 2.3.3 or later. If, for whatever reason, that release needs to be updated to 2.3.3, the profile will need to be changed. Which is not an issue if there's a valid reason why it needs to be done. Cheers, Dylan Carlson [absinthe@gentoo.org] Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list