[gentoo-dev] Re: laying out arch profiles

[Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > this would be for 2007.1+ profiles and we can leave the old things in
>> > place until we phase out 2007.0 and older completely
>>
>> This is actually something I was already planning on working on setting
>> up.  To avoid conflicting with the current profiles, I was planning on
>> making a new profile tree.  I wasn't planning on using it for 2007.1's
>> official media, though, but rather just /experimental stuff, since I'd
>> rather get much more testing on it before it goes "live" as the default.
> 
> you proposing we rearchitect it all or just for testing purposes before
> going live ?
Er I thought the whole point of a portage tree on the system was to allow
people to mess about with stuff.. Even if not, is there any real conflict
in doing both; ie rearchitect on an offline version, test properly and then
switch to new branch? However long releng need is however long they need
aiui. After the stress of the last few months, is it really such a big deal
if there's no 2007.1- it's not like anyone needs to reinstall is it?

Plus the difference between portage in 2006.0 and 2006.1 was a major bonus
for users. It might be simpler just to allow all the good stuff that's
being worked on now, and has already been discussed on this list, time to
come thru and bed down. After all, users only look stupid when we try and
install stuff that doesn't Just Work? especially after we've raved about
Gentoo, and got some poor schmuc^H^H^H^H *ahem* gained permission from the
relevant department to install ``rootkits behind the firewall''.[1]

Speaking of stuff that's holding you back, what's going on with the PMS?
Aiui several changes to portage await EAPI=1 and i don't see any sign of
EAPI=0 being finalised. The cia project page shows no commits since April.
Has it switched to another src-tracker?

> i can see both ... 
> profiles/frags/
>   libc/uclibc/
>   libc/gclibc/
>   arch/amd64/
>   arch/sh/
>   kernel/linux/
>   kernel/bsd/
>   kernel/bsd/freebsd/
>   kernel/bsd/openbsd/
> 
> profiles/default-linux/amd64/parent
>   ../../frags/arch/amd64
>   ../../frags/kernel/linux
>   ../../frags/libc/glibc
>   ..

Makes a lot of sense when you lay it out like that. Is there a namespace
issue with profiles/{libc,arch,kernel}?



[1] `Do you want to install this program? [setup.exe]' - wfm ;)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list