From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16924 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 17:59:01 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 17:59:01 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BvJpV-0008S0-NJ for arch-gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:57:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 14058 invoked by uid 89); 12 Aug 2004 17:37:32 +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 32677 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 17:37:31 +0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:36:23 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200408111331.30552.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <200408121001.42258.jhuebel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200408121001.42258.jhuebel@gentoo.org> Cc: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_dq6GBHl0kXHQIn8"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408121936.29863.pauldv@gentoo.org> Subject: [gentoo-releng] Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2004.0 Profile Deprecated X-Archives-Salt: a6e42f3d-e3c7-42ec-b2d0-7afec94b3633 X-Archives-Hash: a153a26ce1781841548ead48a3a265ea --Boundary-02=_dq6GBHl0kXHQIn8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 12 August 2004 17:01, Jason Huebel wrote: > > K, since I'm the release maintainer for amd64, I'm going to chime in on > this. This may not be a popular opinion, but so be it. > > I am of the opinion that a new profile should be part of each new Gentoo > release. It may be confusing for the user if s/he is using a 2004.0 > profile with a 2004.2 release. Whether there are significant profile > changes or not, Gentoo 2004.0 has a 2004.0 profile, 2004.2 has a 2004.2 > profile, and 2004.3 will have a 2004.3 profile. And so on... The only > exception has been 2004.1, but I was still relatively new to being a > release maintainer and hadn't formulated a solid opinion on profiles. > > For the release maintainers, creating a new profile is very simple and > quick. For users, updating to the new profile is also very simple and > quick. I fail to see the big problem here. =46rom what I remember this was not the initial idea. Maybe your position i= s=20 better, but some discussion might be appropriate. I think it should be done= =20 consistently for the different architectures. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_dq6GBHl0kXHQIn8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBG6qdbKx5DBjWFdsRAkFUAJ9eg7mIqHN93hrk8rJRbZ/IOWEjagCeJ2Rn dSOYb34LmC+CSJ12zc4YABc= =eKND -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_dq6GBHl0kXHQIn8--