On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 11:10, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 14:58, William Hubbs wrote: > > I don't see why we need the yearly refreshes either. > > > > I like the suggestion of making the names more descriptive in stead of using numbers. > > Fore example, default/linux/am64. > > Then, you might have default/linux/am64/gcc34. > > Suppose that you decide to make the default am64 profile use gcc 3.4. All you have to do is merge the am64/gcc34 profile into the am64 profile. > > You could do this type of merging with any revision you want to become part of the default profile, and otherwise not change the default profile at all. > > > > What do you think? > > So how does a user know the profile has changed? What happens to users > using the gcc34 profile? What would this do to any of the proposed > "stable" portage tree incarnations? > > I'm all for a profile for each release which *never* changes. Additions > can be made as sub-profiles, but a profile never changes. This way > things act exactly the same every time. Consistency is a REQUIREMENT > for QA. > > I think creating a profile for each release is very simple. I've > created one myself for 2004.2 and I can tell you that it sure was a hard > 3 minutes of my life... *grin* > > Having a stable profile is a definite requirement for any stable > project. Since we've been talking with the stable project guys, I think > we definitely should not be discussing doing the exact opposite of what > is needed to cooperate with them, especially on a separate list which > they might not be subscribed to... Chris - I agree on all points. Does the stable team (are they a team) have a ML? Cheers, -- John Davis Gentoo Linux Developer ---- GnuPG Public Key: Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C 2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB