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 1E9uF2-0007fc-5Y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:44:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7U0g3e6015680; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:42:03 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7U0eLkl013383 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:40:22 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.101] (pcp09042172pcs.rocsth01.mi.comcast.net [68.60.51.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7U0gHtk006845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4313AB65.7010105@egr.msu.edu> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:42:13 -0400 From: Alec Warner User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (X11/20050724) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <28B2A791-A149-4B58-86D8-8DD349D081E5@gentoo.org> <1125331147.1964.100.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <1125339012.5545.7.camel@localhost> <1125341929.1964.125.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <1125351253.warnera6.squirrel@localhost> <1125352914.1964.165.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> In-Reply-To: <1125352914.1964.165.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c055f620-658e-4993-845b-aa249a0828de X-Archives-Hash: 898dc5674db8c10b6b59d71011cdf584 Chris Gianelloni wrote: >On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0400, warnera6@egr.msu.edu wrote: > > >> I think Brian mentioned /etc/portage/profile and other fun portage tricks >>to mess with the default profile. If you think the profile shouldn't be >>changed then don't make it a mutable option. If you think that bugs >>where people fubared their profile are a problem then write a tool to >>print out that information and have the user present it to you when they >>file the bug. >> >> > >What? I was saying that *we* shouldn't have to waste *our* time making >profiles we won't use. End of discussion. If you want a >"warner6-wuz-here" profile under default-linux/x86 that turned off all >the USE flags and only enabled USE="yes-I-really-only-want-this-one-USE" >then you could. We won't stop you, nor will we care to stop you. We >wouldn't even complain. > > >>As far as maintainability, you could always make a profile outside of the >>default-linux tree ( default-gentoo/* ) and construct the >>smaller/faster/better profiles there. That means anyone that wants to >> >> > >No. *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time. I care >about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the >release. If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care. > > > and *I* can't make a tree-wide server profile because *I* don't have a) commit access and b) a minimal profile to derive from other than default-linux, and thats yours and you said you will not let it be changed. Plus default-linux is far too minimal. So *I* have to jump on -dev and convince others ( not necessarily you, mind ) that a profile of this nature is a good idea, so *I* don't end up having to duplicate tons of work making a default profile for every arch I run. >That being said, I wouldn't want anyone changing the profile I used to >build the release. > >If I do a stage3 today and a stage3 tomorrow, both using the same >profile, then do an "emerge gnome" on each, I would expect it to have >the same USE flags. This is a simple matter of reproducibility and >predictability. > > > >>customize can change the symlink and you ( releng ) still get your >>pristine release profiles ( which IMHO is a silly notion, but I don't >>manage your bugs, so whichever way you like ;) ). Going on that notion, >> >> > >I am really shooting for predictability with the profiles that are >managed by releng. > > > >>you could also do default-linux/x86/2005.1/release or whatnot if you want >>to maintain that as well. >> >> > >Why? Would you not expect the 2005.1 Handbook plus the 2005.1 media >plus the 2005.1 profile to produce a 2005.1 system? Why would I need a >"release" sub-profile to distinguish it as a release? Is that not >completely redundant? > > The plan with having a release sub-profile was making the default-linux/${ARCH}/${RELEASE}/ a minimal profile and then have the /release subprofile be 'normal', and taking a second look really no different from a "desktop" subprofile other than better naming. as far as profiles, there is no documentation that I can find on who 'owns' profiles and does work on them. Sorry if you end up doing all the work on default-linux, I will focus my efforts elsewhere if that is the case. I just know that for the majority of profiles default-linux/arch is what most of them inherit from, so thats where the party started ;) -Alec Warner (antarus) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list