[gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Samuli Suominen]

As subject says,

default/linux/*/10.0
default/hardened/linux/*/10.0

Profiles are up, the 10.0 releng / 10th anniversary ones.

All new development is to be done with these.

For users of 2008.0 this doesn't mean much as they are cloned ones.

New LiveCD's will be based on 10.0.

For arch's & hardened: You should deprecated 2008.0 in, let's say, when
year changes and point users to switching to 10.0 ones (feel free to do
this sooner). Handbooks needs to be also updated.

Thanks, Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Jeremy Olexa]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> As subject says,
> 
> default/linux/*/10.0
> default/hardened/linux/*/10.0
> 
> Profiles are up, the 10.0 releng / 10th anniversary ones.
> 
> All new development is to be done with these.
> 
> For users of 2008.0 this doesn't mean much as they are cloned ones.
> 
> New LiveCD's will be based on 10.0.
> 
> For arch's & hardened: You should deprecated 2008.0 in, let's say, when
> year changes and point users to switching to 10.0 ones (feel free to do
> this sooner). Handbooks needs to be also updated.
> 
> Thanks, Samuli
> 

Hi Samuli,
Given the multi-inheritance nature of profiles, it is not obvious what 
changed to me. So, what is new with 10.0 profiles or are they a 
"cosmetic" naming change?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Samuli Suominen]

Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> As subject says,
>> default/linux/*/10.0
>> default/hardened/linux/*/10.0
>> Profiles are up, the 10.0 releng / 10th anniversary ones.
>>
> Given the multi-inheritance nature of profiles, it is not obvious what
> changed to me. So, what is new with 10.0 profiles or are they a
> "cosmetic" naming change?

Cosmetics for now. I was asked to clone the 2008.0 ones, and that was
done this morning. Don't know yet if release wants some changes. If
someone wants to e.g. change make.defaults, now would be a good time to
suggest proposals...

So for the 3 prefix-linux profiles that's using 2008.0 now, you can feel
safe and simply change the parents to point at 10.0.

Thanks, Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1898 bytes --]

On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> As subject says,
> >> default/linux/*/10.0
> >> default/hardened/linux/*/10.0
> >> Profiles are up, the 10.0 releng / 10th anniversary ones.
> >>
> > Given the multi-inheritance nature of profiles, it is not obvious what
> > changed to me. So, what is new with 10.0 profiles or are they a
> > "cosmetic" naming change?
> 
> Cosmetics for now. I was asked to clone the 2008.0 ones, and that was
> done this morning. Don't know yet if release wants some changes. If
> someone wants to e.g. change make.defaults, now would be a good time to
> suggest proposals...

I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles
to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal
one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as
well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff.
Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by
multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles.
Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a
big desktop one enabling everything...

The current state is pretty suboptimal.
With desktop profile you get KDE/Qt flags and also GNOME flags, yet none
of them is complete of what you'd like to have - e.g in GNOME case most
everyone would want to add nautilus, gnome-keyring and some more USE
flags, but you can't do that by simply selecting the appropriate desktop
profile, so many don't get the correct and desired things enabled for
their desktop environment of choice.

> So for the 3 prefix-linux profiles that's using 2008.0 now, you can feel
> safe and simply change the parents to point at 10.0.

-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1409 bytes --]

Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles
> to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal
> one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as
> well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff.
> Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by
> multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles.
> Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a
> big desktop one enabling everything...

What could be nice is if users could select multiple profiles. They
first choose the "desktop" profile, which has lots of basic stuff that's
DE/WM-agnostic. They could then select another profile that adds e.g.
Gnome stuff, like you suggested.

I suppose the potential problem here (besides coding support for more
than one profile) is making sure that the selected profile's USE flags
(etc.) don't conflict with other selected profiles. Profile authors
would have to be pretty aware of what other profiles contain, and/or the
package manager would have to have some heavy duty resolver.

One could just avoid the whole multiple-profiles-selected thing by
cloning bits of one profile (like a minimal agnostic "desktop"), then
adding your own USE flags, and calling it the "Gnome" profile, but this
introduces lots of code duplication.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Zac Medico]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>> I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles
>> to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal
>> one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as
>> well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff.
>> Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by
>> multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles.
>> Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a
>> big desktop one enabling everything...
> 
> What could be nice is if users could select multiple profiles. They
> first choose the "desktop" profile, which has lots of basic stuff that's
> DE/WM-agnostic. They could then select another profile that adds e.g.
> Gnome stuff, like you suggested.

It would be pretty trivial to use a PORTAGE_PROFILES variable in
make.conf, to replace /etc/make.profile. You could do something like
this:

PORTAGE_PROFILES="/usr/portage/profiles/desktop
/usr/portage/profiles/gnome"

You could use this approach to pull in profiles from overlays too if
desired.

> I suppose the potential problem here (besides coding support for more
> than one profile) is making sure that the selected profile's USE flags
> (etc.) don't conflict with other selected profiles. Profile authors
> would have to be pretty aware of what other profiles contain, and/or the
> package manager would have to have some heavy duty resolver.

I doubt that it will be much of an issue, but the dependency
resolver will surely give you at least some kind of error if
something goes wrong.

> One could just avoid the whole multiple-profiles-selected thing by
> cloning bits of one profile (like a minimal agnostic "desktop"), then
> adding your own USE flags, and calling it the "Gnome" profile, but this
> introduces lots of code duplication.

Right now, users can combine multiple profiles by creating
/etc/make.profile as a directory and adding as many profile paths as
desired to the parent file (equivalent to the proposed
PORTAGE_PROFILES approach, but using a file instead of a variable).
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Alex Alexander]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 22:17, Zac Medico<zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It would be pretty trivial to use a PORTAGE_PROFILES variable in
> make.conf, to replace /etc/make.profile. You could do something like
> this:
>
> PORTAGE_PROFILES="/usr/portage/profiles/desktop
> /usr/portage/profiles/gnome"
>
> You could use this approach to pull in profiles from overlays too if
> desired.

This looks pretty neat. Many (new) users who ignore or are ignorant of
profiles could benefit by it, since they'll (have to) look at it when
they first open the default /etc/make.conf

> --
> Thanks,
> Zac
>
>

-- 
Alex || wired
Gentoo Dev
www.linuxized.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[AllenJB]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>> I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles
>> to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal
>> one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as
>> well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff.
>> Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by
>> multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles.
>> Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a
>> big desktop one enabling everything...
> 
> What could be nice is if users could select multiple profiles. They
> first choose the "desktop" profile, which has lots of basic stuff that's
> DE/WM-agnostic. They could then select another profile that adds e.g.
> Gnome stuff, like you suggested.
> 
> I suppose the potential problem here (besides coding support for more
> than one profile) is making sure that the selected profile's USE flags
> (etc.) don't conflict with other selected profiles. Profile authors
> would have to be pretty aware of what other profiles contain, and/or the
> package manager would have to have some heavy duty resolver.
> 
> One could just avoid the whole multiple-profiles-selected thing by
> cloning bits of one profile (like a minimal agnostic "desktop"), then
> adding your own USE flags, and calling it the "Gnome" profile, but this
> introduces lots of code duplication.
> 
Many new users seem to have trouble grasping how profiles work in their
current, relatively simple, format. I think adding complexity to this is
only going to make things worse.

This will also take a step back in that users will have to be exposed to
the raw profile locations within the tree. We've only just got rid of
this (as soon as the handbooks actually get updated, anyway) now that
"eselect profile" is available in stage3. Getting profile paths wrong
was, in my experience, one of the most common problems new users had.

I believe that if you want to successfully implement this idea, you will
have to create a tool (or modify "eselect profile") to allow this to be
done without exposing users to the raw paths.

AllenJB

Re: [gentoo-dev] New 10.0 profiles are in repository

[Zac Medico]

AllenJB wrote:
> Josh Saddler wrote:
>> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>>> I wanted to work at some point on splitting out gnome and kde profiles
>>> to separate ones. Perhaps desktop profile could be a generic universal
>>> one with USE flags enabled that rox/lxde/fluxbox and so on would like as
>>> well, and then gnome adds its stuff, and kde adds its own stuff.
>>> Or desktop could be one that enabled both GNOME and KDE stuff as now, by
>>> multi-inheriting both gnome and kde profiles.
>>> Or perhaps both a lowest common denominator desktop-base profile and a
>>> big desktop one enabling everything...
>> What could be nice is if users could select multiple profiles. They
>> first choose the "desktop" profile, which has lots of basic stuff that's
>> DE/WM-agnostic. They could then select another profile that adds e.g.
>> Gnome stuff, like you suggested.
>>
>> I suppose the potential problem here (besides coding support for more
>> than one profile) is making sure that the selected profile's USE flags
>> (etc.) don't conflict with other selected profiles. Profile authors
>> would have to be pretty aware of what other profiles contain, and/or the
>> package manager would have to have some heavy duty resolver.
>>
>> One could just avoid the whole multiple-profiles-selected thing by
>> cloning bits of one profile (like a minimal agnostic "desktop"), then
>> adding your own USE flags, and calling it the "Gnome" profile, but this
>> introduces lots of code duplication.
>>
> Many new users seem to have trouble grasping how profiles work in their
> current, relatively simple, format. I think adding complexity to this is
> only going to make things worse.
> 
> This will also take a step back in that users will have to be exposed to
> the raw profile locations within the tree. We've only just got rid of
> this (as soon as the handbooks actually get updated, anyway) now that
> "eselect profile" is available in stage3. Getting profile paths wrong
> was, in my experience, one of the most common problems new users had.

The make.profile symlink will still be supported. It's needed at
least for backward compatibility.

> I believe that if you want to successfully implement this idea, you will
> have to create a tool (or modify "eselect profile") to allow this to be
> done without exposing users to the raw paths.

Sure, we can do that.

> AllenJB
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Zac