1 |
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 16:18 +0100, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: |
2 |
> On Monday 26 February 2007 15:35:04 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
3 |
> > > My personal belief is that the profiles shouldn't be removing |
4 |
> > > requirements on things unless they're incompatible. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > My personal belief is that the profiles should be minimalistic, only |
7 |
> > bringing |
8 |
> > in thing that are really required -- but perhaps, I should be using the |
9 |
> > parent profile of desktop instead, then? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> This is inherited from the base profile so it's not specific to any desktop |
12 |
> profile at all. What you could do is create your own profile which inherits |
13 |
> from whichever profile you want and contains: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> # cat << EOF > packages |
16 |
> -*virtual/ssh |
17 |
> EOF |
18 |
|
19 |
Correct. This is what I mean by *not* removing packages. |
20 |
|
21 |
In other words, Release Engineering wouldn't make a profile that |
22 |
*removes* things from base, unless it was incompatible, such as removing |
23 |
a package which isn't available due to an incompatibility. We have a |
24 |
simple rule, as things go to the right in our profiles, they go more |
25 |
specific, and are additive from the parent. The *only* way we would |
26 |
remove virtual/ssh from the desktop profile would mean removing it from |
27 |
base, then moving it to every single leaf profile *except* the desktop |
28 |
ones. You can probably guess why we don't want to do that. Of course, |
29 |
Bo's solution really is the quickest without resorting to any further |
30 |
tricks. If you want a custom profile (which you do if you don't want |
31 |
virtual/ssh), then create one. ;] |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Chris Gianelloni |
35 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
36 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
37 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
38 |
Gentoo Foundation |