From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14604 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 18:58:31 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 18:58:31 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BvhG2-000333-C2 for arch-gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:58:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 23023 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2004 18:58:29 +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 8835 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 18:58:29 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:58:28 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040813185828.GA2481@linux1.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org References: <200408111331.30552.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <200408121836.12316.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <20040813133922.GI1901@time.flatmonk.org> <200408130959.35892.jhuebel@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200408130959.35892.jhuebel@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2004.0 Profile Deprecated X-Archives-Salt: 8dca293c-9cea-4242-959a-04ccc420e351 X-Archives-Hash: b180118f783ec3d836999f2b223a734c -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:59:27AM -0500, Jason Huebel wrote: > On Friday 13 August 2004 8:39 am, Aron Griffis wrote: > > > Maybe it would make more sense to have yearly refreshes of the > > > profiles, with profile "revisions" during the year using -r#. > > > > What's the point of the yearly refreshes? > > Honestly, those yearly refreshes would be a duplication of effort. However, > if we use the year as the major number, it seems to me that the first release > for each year should include a refresh of the profile as well, just to track > with the year's releases. It's less duplication of effort than the current > flat-profile scheme, but still maintains an understandable progression. > > There's no point in simplifying the versioning scheme if we're unwilling to do > any "cleanup maintenance". There is going to be some duplication, period. > But that duplication (minimized as much as possible) is what makes a > well-maintained set of profiles. 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? William -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBHQ9UblQW9DDEZTgRAvaUAJ9lgCqUMO1g0SHDVw4gFPPuQzyRwwCeNeN/ AGISNaH8omBmeok77WF57Dg= =vm+k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list