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 1EA0zJ-0003SQ-SO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:56:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7U7sEYR015418; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:54:14 GMT Received: from rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net [200.44.33.31]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7U7pl6D031438 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:51:47 GMT Received: from dC9F33F54.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net (dC9F33F54.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net [201.243.63.84]) by rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (8.13.4/8.13.0/3.0) with ESMTP id j7U7rn0u032339 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:53:50 -0400 X-Matched-Lists: [] Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by dC9F33F54.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EA0wI-0007Q4-78 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:53:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4314108D.7080908@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:53:49 -0400 From: "Luis F. Araujo" Organization: Gentoo inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050820) 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> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829223411.GF13987@nightcrawler> In-Reply-To: <20050829223411.GF13987@nightcrawler> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.86.2, clamav-milter version 0.86 on rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Archives-Salt: 6a0c4432-810e-4463-a448-642446d9b837 X-Archives-Hash: 7f8c1a66e8658b81f03f43d55ad20f63 Brian Harring wrote: >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, >and actually is what I was getting at in the badly worded section >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 >>>only in the ability to negate a collection of flags. >>>Negating the whole beast is another story due to the desktop cruft >>>being shoved into the arch subprofiles. >>> >>> >>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 >build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing >default-linux/x86/2005.1 ; > >Why? Mainly due to the fact that I would be forced to reverse a *lot* >of stuff, use flags mainly, to get it back down to a minimal profile. >That's what I mean by lack of customization; it can be done, but it's >not optimal, vs say inheriting a base default/x86/2005.1 that holds >just system defaults (pam, cflags, etc). > >If I were to implement a server profile from existing, I'd probably >tag in -* to the use, and add the use flags I explicitly want; that's >not really the best way to use the profiles inheritance capabilities >though :) > > > >>>Profile customization occurs, /etc/portage/profiles exists for this >>>reason; the 2005.1 profile (fex) is probably *rarely* ran exactly as >>>y'all have it specified considering we do have user level use flags, >>>tweaking the hell out of '05.1. >>> >>> >>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. >> >>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 >after sticking a level of indirection, a subprofile into the releng >profile inheritance chain so that if I *want* a minimal profile (as >you use), I can get it without having to resort to -* and tracking all >of the changes myself. > >It's a time saving effort; add multiple inheritance in, and it's easy >to do (win/win). > > > It'd be very handy , what if we setup a limit of subprofiles so to avoid people requesting other subprofiles?, and at the same time we can take more advantage of this idea? For example, we could have, a minimal, a default, and a custom subprofile. minimal would contain , well, as the word says, the minimal configuration, so everyone willing to have only "USE=-* basic-stuff" , can get it out of the box. default would be the profile which releng link the releases against. Our current profile. custom would be some way of people to tweak and do whatever they want .. this would be more like a way to give some kind of organization. With this kind of structure, we are still pretty general to fall into a "I want a Gnome profile" , but we can still take advantage of the feature for specific needs, and makes easier in such a way. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list