[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations?

["Steven J. Long" <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:39:20AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I've always disliked unnecessary profiles, a lot, but this whole 
> selecting of init plus packages supporting it plus the /usr-move issue 
> the systemd maintainers are bundling together with it by forcing the 
> unstandard systemd installation to /usr...
> imho, would be good enough reason for a one or two more sub profiles
> 
> What if eg. profiles/targets/desktop would have sub directory 

> profiles/targets/desktop/systemd:
>  which would have a 'parent' of '..'
>  with USE="-consolekit systemd" and [systemd-specific settings]

Yeah, the changes seem to warrant a sub-profile.

> profiles/targets/desktop/gnome:
>  with 'parent' of '..' and '../../systemd' 

Should that latter be '../systemd' ?

> that mask the core packages GNOME 3.x that will pull in systemd 
> unconditionally, and profiles/targets/desktop/systemd unmasking those 
> packages

Er doesn't it make more sense for the gnome sub-profile to unmask what it
needs? Or does gnome apply to 2 and 3 both?

It would seem to make sense if the packages are unmasked conditionally
in the parent, or the linux profile, and then unmasked in the profiles
that need them. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

> (I hope that was readable, it seems a lot simpler in my head ;-)

With a bit of separation, yeah ;) Makes sense as an overall approach.

regards,
igli
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)