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 7A7FF1392EF for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E9ABE084D; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.salomon.at (smtp.salomon.at [193.186.16.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76FFE07EE for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from samail03.wamas.com ([172.28.2.2] helo=mailhost.salomon.at) by smtp.salomon.at with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1X2b0M-0007zT-OI; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:00:27 +0200 Received: from s01en24.wamas.com ([172.28.41.39]) by mailhost.salomon.at with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1X2b0E-0005xl-Iw; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:00:18 +0200 Message-ID: <53B4FF82.4020309@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:00:18 +0200 From: Michael Haubenwallner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131121 Thunderbird/17.0.9 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> <53B4F5AF.9020600@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53B4F5AF.9020600@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 3c603cee-932b-4dc7-9fff-8a687669e79a X-Archives-Hash: 54161086c9ae5a0ba7464cf5cd3d1a8e On 07/03/2014 08:18 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 07/02/2014 13:54, Michał Górny wrote: >> Dnia 2014-07-02, o godz. 10:44:16 > [snip] >> >> 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... >> > > I am going to throw this out there and see what people think. Maybe it's > insane, maybe it's not, maybe it's a mix of insane and not-insane. > > Years ago, before we had the current stacking profile design (we were > discussing the current design, actually), I kinda conjured up this "building > blocks" like approach for a profile design. > The idea being that, in /etc/make.conf (or wherever that file is now), you'd > define $PROFILE like this: > > linux-mips o32 uclibc server: > PROFILE="base:kernel/linux:arch/mips:subarch/mips-o32:libc/uclibc:roles/server:releases/13.0" What about making /etc/portage/make.profile a directory rather than a symlink, having /etc/portage/make.profile/parent to reference all the flavours? Tools that need to respect the /current/ profile should work without any change, and tools that need to respect the /available/ profiles (repoman) already do have a list of profiles to respect (profiles/profiles.desc). So the only missing thing would be the eselect profile module to manage entries of /etc/portage/make.profile/parent, maybe using /usr/portage/profiles/profiles.desc as the source for available flavours. my 2 cents /haubi/