From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29893 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 14:20:29 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 14:20:29 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bvcuy-0007dd-NT for arch-gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:20:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 8482 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2004 14:20:27 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-releng-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-releng@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 8934 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 14:20:27 +0000 From: John Davis Reply-To: john_davis@pauldavisautomation.com To: seemant@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1092375494.17392.1.camel@sephora> References: <200408111331.30552.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <200408121836.12316.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <1092358337.25075.1.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> <200408122008.26655.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <1092367781.30631.27.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> <1092375494.17392.1.camel@sephora> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-EAkPe6AX5mNntA1dsXa9" Organization: Paul Davis Automation, Inc. Message-Id: <1092406829.30635.37.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:20:29 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.pauldavisautomation.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2004.0 Profile Deprecated X-Archives-Salt: 3f399ac3-c0ba-43d4-b5e2-561d3315b460 X-Archives-Hash: fb0fdef0c5777057036a6a8b2d916676 --=-EAkPe6AX5mNntA1dsXa9 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 01:38, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > you know, this maybe silly, but I do kind of like not having version > numbers at all, and maybe making the profile names more descriptive >=20 > so in the amd64 profile, you'd have gcc34, for example > and in all of them, we could have xfree and xorg profiles. > Thoughts? I could see either way working. The nice thing about your proposal is that it cuts all of the bloat associated with version numbering. The only con that I can see is that it does not offer a standardized way of marking profile revisions like jhuebel's does (-r1, -r2, no matter what the arch or the change). Since this is a good comment, I am forwarding it to the list ;) Regards, --=20 John Davis Gentoo Linux Developer ---- GnuPG Public Key: Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C 2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB --=-EAkPe6AX5mNntA1dsXa9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBHM4tuSxII+KBQbsRAv3VAKCv7grxLcdb/PvLPbWBmxEvZHUVJwCfVQiI FL7x9edvg6Rho95LdeluRbI= =/Tcm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-EAkPe6AX5mNntA1dsXa9--