From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6E213877A for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:06:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45C85E091A; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EC73E08B0 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5312533E1C2 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B45860.2050400@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:07:12 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new profile layout with flavors and mix-ins References: <20140702154416.GA1151@linux1> <20140702195437.09c8efdb@pomiot.lan> <53B4523F.8040102@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53B4523F.8040102@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 17afd102-dc23-40f6-8b07-f58c3d54e08d X-Archives-Hash: 896c8e26553bd8155f4fe958207aadfc On 07/02/14 14:41, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/02/2014 02:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> I don't feel like we ought to vote on something like this without >>> understanding most of the current profiles. And I'm afraid there are >>> only few people who have any idea about the current profile >>> structure... >> No argument there. >> >> We may very well still end up with something hierarchical, but we can >> at least limit that to the parts of the profile where it matters. >> Maybe x86/BSD and amd64/Linux and amd64/Linux-hardened need to be >> interdependent. However, that still gets rid of need to deal with >> desktop environments, init systems, arguments over what belongs in >> @system, and so on. We could have a blocker mechanism to keep people >> from mixing systemd with BSD, or we could just let people shoot >> themselves in the foot. >> >> Sounds like a good time to start reverse engineering the profiles... >> > I've talked to the funtoo devs a few times about stealing their profile > idea. A few things need to be done to make this happen, mainly eselect, > catalyst, and repoman support. I can do the eselect and catalyst > changes myself, however, I'll require some help for the repoman support > most likely. I'll prototype this locally, see what I can make work, and > then see about making it usable for others to test. > > - -Zero > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > I don't know how to get from here to there. The problem isn't just constructing an alternative profile tree. We could even have /usr/portage/profiles-r2 and switch between the two on demand. The problem is there's a lot of memory with flags and masks and these only make sense in the context of the current stacking profiles. Disentangling this information and bringing it over to profiles-r2 is going to be work. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA