On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 23:53 +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> | On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:11:49 -0500 Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | | EPROFILE="default:linux:mips:uclibc:selinux:ip30"
> |
> | Any advantage to this over a bunch of symlinks?
> |
> AFAIK symlinks can't be handled by CVS :-/
> 
> On the other hand: Genone has an interesting proposal for multiple
> entries in the profiles' "parent"-files.

Yeah.  The main difference is that my idea can be done by 2006.0 with no
additional support in portage, and once multiple inheritance shows up in
portage, can have the added benefit of multiple inheritances, similar to
what Joshua proposed.

Essentially, this reorganization would clean up the profile tree a bit,
and wouldn't cause any problems with future concepts going into portage
such as multiple parents.  This means that you could, for example, have
a hardened/linux/mips/uclibc/selinux/ip30 profile that inherits from the
linux mips glibc ip30 profiles.  Basically, you'd just have your
end-point profiles doing the actual inheriting, except in cases where
the end-point profile is only overriding a small part of the parent (eg.
a 2.4 sub-profile).  You would still get the mix and match abilities,
and we don't have to wait on the portage folk.  It also fits in with
what they've already got on their radar, which makes it much easier to
implement.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux