[gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2168 bytes --]

Alright people, I'm starting up the feature requests for the 2006.1
release.  Some things to remember when making requests:

- We don't control what is stable in the tree, so requests for specific
packages won't be useful to us.  If you want a specific package added to
the release media, there are two steps required.  First, the package
must be marked stable on any architecture which will be using the
package.  Second, a bug should be filed requesting the package be added.
Please make sure that your request has not already been filed before
filing a new bug report.
- We don't control portage features.
- We don't control kernel versions, but we do control which *-sources we
use and also the configurations of those kernels.

A few ideas on things you can request are:

- New modules added to the release media
- New packages added to GRP/LiveCD/LiveDVD
- New media types (LiveDVD/netboot/*)
- Additional USE flags enabled/disabled by default

I am currently working on a new set of profiles for 2006.1 on x86.  As
you can tell, these profiles are a bit different from anything else that
we have done in the past, as it separates out into "desktop" and
"server" profiles.  The "desktop" profile is very similar to what we
have always had on each release.  The "server" profile is new, and has
none of the typical desktop USE flags enabled, making it ideal for
server usage.  I plan on also creating some sort of "developer" profile
which will inherit from both "desktop" and "server" profiles, once
portage has support for multiple inheritance, so it might not make it
into the 2006.1 profiles.  I am looking for suggestions for USE flags to
add to these two profiles, so feel free to make suggestions.  Please
cite some reasoning for why you think each USE flag you recommend should
be either enabled or disabled.  The profiles are at
profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/2006.1/desktop and
profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/2006.1/server for you to peruse.  They
are completely functional profiles at this time.

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 11:41:59AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Alright people, I'm starting up the feature requests for the 2006.1
> release.

A documented way to rescue a failure in the installer procedure. I know of
the installer.log file, but that's about it.

Internationalised installation tool

A personalised, Gentoo-branded coffee machine

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen


-- 
  Gentoo Foundation Trustee          |  http://foundation.gentoo.org
  Gentoo Council Member  

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[Andrew Gaffney]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 11:41:59AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Alright people, I'm starting up the feature requests for the 2006.1
>> release.
> 
> A documented way to rescue a failure in the installer procedure. I know of
> the installer.log file, but that's about it.

Rescue a failed install? It's called the handbook :P

> Internationalised installation tool

Working on it.

> A personalised, Gentoo-branded coffee machine

http://www.cafepress.com/officialgentoo.22573763

Put that on your coffee machine.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project

-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[solar]

You cant really do a server profile so far nested within the 
default-linux profiles. The flags will be just wrong.
Also a server is not something you should be switching profiles every 6 
months. 

If you are serious about a server profile I'd suggest dropping what you 
are thinking now. Lets have a meeting (hardened + server + infra +
releng ) folks and do it right together.


On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 11:41 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Alright people, I'm starting up the feature requests for the 2006.1
> release.  Some things to remember when making requests:
> 
> - We don't control what is stable in the tree, so requests for specific
> packages won't be useful to us.  If you want a specific package added to
> the release media, there are two steps required.  First, the package
> must be marked stable on any architecture which will be using the
> package.  Second, a bug should be filed requesting the package be added.
> Please make sure that your request has not already been filed before
> filing a new bug report.
> - We don't control portage features.
> - We don't control kernel versions, but we do control which *-sources we
> use and also the configurations of those kernels.
> 
> A few ideas on things you can request are:
> 
> - New modules added to the release media
> - New packages added to GRP/LiveCD/LiveDVD
> - New media types (LiveDVD/netboot/*)
> - Additional USE flags enabled/disabled by default
> 
> I am currently working on a new set of profiles for 2006.1 on x86.  As
> you can tell, these profiles are a bit different from anything else that
> we have done in the past, as it separates out into "desktop" and
> "server" profiles.  The "desktop" profile is very similar to what we
> have always had on each release.  The "server" profile is new, and has
> none of the typical desktop USE flags enabled, making it ideal for
> server usage.  I plan on also creating some sort of "developer" profile
> which will inherit from both "desktop" and "server" profiles, once
> portage has support for multiple inheritance, so it might not make it
> into the 2006.1 profiles.  I am looking for suggestions for USE flags to
> add to these two profiles, so feel free to make suggestions.  Please
> cite some reasoning for why you think each USE flag you recommend should
> be either enabled or disabled.  The profiles are at
> profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/2006.1/desktop and
> profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/2006.1/server for you to peruse.  They
> are completely functional profiles at this time.
> 
-- 
solar <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:27 -0500, solar wrote:
> You cant really do a server profile so far nested within the 
> default-linux profiles. The flags will be just wrong.

Have you verified this or are you just assuming?

> Also a server is not something you should be switching profiles every 6 
> months.

This I definitely agree with, with the exception that I am specifically
looking to create a profile set that *is* changed every release.  The
main difference here would be that profiles would be deprecated/removed
at a *much* slower rate.

> If you are serious about a server profile I'd suggest dropping what you 
> are thinking now. Lets have a meeting (hardened + server + infra +
> releng ) folks and do it right together.

I'm not sure what either Infra or Hardened would have to do with
"default-linux" stuff, except that their input would be very valued as
they would be experienced in these matters.  I have no problem with
having some sort of meeting.  My primary reason for the profile is to
keep all of the "cruft" from dev-lang/php out of the desktop profiles
and to keep the gnome and kde stuff out of the server profile.  I *know*
that they're not perfect or even what is necessarily desired, which was
the point of including all of the profile stuff in the original email.

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1

[solar]

On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:51 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:27 -0500, solar wrote:
> > You cant really do a server profile so far nested within the 
> > default-linux profiles. The flags will be just wrong.

> Have you verified this or are you just assuming?

took a quick peek and I know how default-linux is maintained. Stuff 
gets added on a whim to upper levels.

> > Also a server is not something you should be switching profiles every 6 
> > months.
> 
> This I definitely agree with, with the exception that I am specifically
> looking to create a profile set that *is* changed every release.  The
> main difference here would be that profiles would be deprecated/removed
> at a *much* slower rate.

While I can semi agree with you here. If we do it. It should either be 
a profile that does not change in terms of being deprecated unless 
there is a real ABI change or one that is an annual profile.

> > If you are serious about a server profile I'd suggest dropping what you 
> > are thinking now. Lets have a meeting (hardened + server + infra +
> > releng ) folks and do it right together.
> 
> I'm not sure what either Infra or Hardened would have to do with
> "default-linux" stuff, except that their input would be very valued as
> they would be experienced in these matters.  

Reason I say this is that time and time again the idea of server 
profiles have been brought up. It's a task I've been willing/wanting to 
take on and work with teams. 
But in the end the result has always been that the 
hardened profile is suitable/ideal for servers and that adding an 
explicit server profile was opted against. Now by you creating one you 
are effectively setting precedence of what a server profile should be.

> I have no problem with
> having some sort of meeting.  My primary reason for the profile is to
> keep all of the "cruft" from dev-lang/php out of the desktop profiles
> and to keep the gnome and kde stuff out of the server profile.  I *know*
> that they're not perfect or even what is necessarily desired, which was
> the point of including all of the profile stuff in the original email.

understood. Heads up however that the (PHP + portage + QA) teams have 
been working together all morning on the best way to solve that bug. So 
a creative solution might be right around the corner.

-peace

-- 
solar <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list