Re: [gentoo-dev] proposed shift of files in the tree of non profiles files into seperate dir

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1436 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:48:20PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> What other changes are you guys thinking of regarding profiles?

That would be Marius's department.  I'm not willing (personally) to
look at revamping profiles till rewrite is finished.

At that point, new profile's should be able to be just plugged in; I 
don't care to bite off any more then I already have ;)

Offhand, I'd expect the removal of package filtering in the packages 
files (package.mask provides this already), probably a bit of renaming 
of packages also.

Why?  Packages is vague.  Stupid reason to change it I realize, but 
packages makes sense in a single set, 'system' set view.  Rearrange it 
so that packages isn't auto assumed to be system, stick it in a subdir 
fex, and you would give profiles the capability to arbitrarily define 
their own sets.

Aside from that, the parent implementation could stand a tweak or two.  
Further, assuming metapkg goes through, virtual is obsoleted.  The 
inclusion of GRP_STAGE23_USE also bugs me a bit; yes it works right 
now, but what happens when you need to push more info in?  Seems like 
it should be contained on it's own.

Either way, just a couple of things off the top of my head.  My main 
push for it is cleanup for stand alone repositories, and ensuring 
anything people attempt with profiles doesn't have side effects on the 
raw repositories metadata.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]