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 1E9sF3-0000Rs-B7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:36:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7TMXxQo011176; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:33:59 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7TMWJ8r005088 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:32:19 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1E9sCo-0001lP-Ij for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:34:18 +0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:34:11 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles Message-ID: <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> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="llIrKcgUOe3dCx0c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 5065b48d-6b11-4100-bab5-669be7578d62 X-Archives-Hash: 3ccec9cc555fd40b6d3de0b0da31b648 --llIrKcgUOe3dCx0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:43:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Re: not shoving work onto you, complicating your job, etc, I agree,=20 and actually is what I was getting at in the badly worded section=20 below > > > My point is pretty simple, > > > why should we spend a bunch of time maintaining something that is > > > designed from the start to be customized, and most likely won't even = be > > > used anyway? > > That's the issue; the profiles in their current form are customizable= =20 > > only in the ability to negate a collection of flags. > > Negating the whole beast is another story due to the desktop cruft=20 > > being shoved into the arch subprofiles. >=20 > Sorry, but this didn't make a bit of sense to me. Perhaps you could > reword it? 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 ; 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). 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 :) > > 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 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=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. It's a time saving effort; add multiple inheritance in, and it's easy=20 to do (win/win). > > 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. 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. ~harring --llIrKcgUOe3dCx0c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDE41jvdBxRoA3VU0RAtERAKDsKG/MuyDbL28FcLIBl0uN44paRgCeJaIK /qzChp2bvKbT2Ie++6//b04= =V/wL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --llIrKcgUOe3dCx0c-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list