Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reorganizing handling of target specific profiles (Was: Split desktop profile patches & news item for review)

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

Hehe,

http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/essays/mixin-profiles.txt

-rw-r--r-- 1 antarus users 2653 Jun  4  2006 mixin-profiles.txt

-A

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Peter Hjalmarsson <xake@rymdraket.net> wrote:
> mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp:
>
>> Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support
>> multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion,
>> and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+.
>>
>
>
> I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting
> for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your
> own cocktail.
> Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to
> only be able to focus on one small set.
>
> For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also
> using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to
> find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my
> GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE?
>
> I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e.
> default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example
> desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be
> interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can
> focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to
> date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked.
>
>
>
>