From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
To: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile 23.0 testing with stages and binhost (part 2 of 2)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:34:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2289587.NgBsaNRSFp@noumea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874jd7yt9d.fsf@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]
> > Note 2: While there are 23.0 split-usr profiles, the *stage* downloads
> > are *all* of the merged-usr type. Why? Not because I'm a big fan of that,
> > but because we should try to unify and standardize a bit again - to
> > avoid too many different build configurations leading to too many Heisenbugs.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea.
>
> We've promised people that they can keep unmerged-usr if they want,
And they can.
[However, I don't see the point for it. Apart from ideological considerations,
there is no obvious advantage to the split-usr layout anymore.]
> but not having stages means new installs aren't doable,
Yes.
> and it also makes testing a pain because you can't easily unmerge.
> You can easily merge, but you can't easily unmerge.
That is the imho more important and valid point, maintaining the remaining
split-usr installs will get harder.
> What you can do is provide a limited number of non-merged-usr variants
> given it's just about saving people rebuilds.
For amd64 and arm64 that's doable (since builds are cheap there).
I would very much discourage using these variants for new installs though.
[And yes I would prefer to deprecate the split-usr profiles and remove them
at some point in the not-so-far future. That is however a topic that needs
separate debate.]
> (I also think it's the wrong way to do such a change anyway - the releng
> part should be last after decision-making, not first.)
The decision where this is going has been made long ago... just not by us
because we've been lagging behind. But I get what you mean.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-16 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-15 18:12 [gentoo-dev] Profile 23.0 testing with stages and binhost (part 2 of 2) Andreas K. Huettel
2024-03-15 23:23 ` Sam James
2024-03-16 9:34 ` Andreas K. Huettel [this message]
2024-03-16 12:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2024-03-16 16:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2289587.NgBsaNRSFp@noumea \
--to=dilfridge@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=sam@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox