Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reorganizing handling of target specific profiles (Was: Split desktop profile patches & news item for review)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:18:32
Message-Id: 20100313211615.GA17983@hrair
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reorganizing handling of target specific profiles (Was: Split desktop profile patches & news item for review) by Peter Hjalmarsson
1 On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:40:00PM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:
2 > mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp:
3 >
4 > > Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support
5 > > multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion,
6 > > and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+.
7 > >
8 >
9 >
10 > I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting
11 > for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your
12 > own cocktail.
13 > Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to
14 > only be able to focus on one small set.
15 >
16 > For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also
17 > using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to
18 > find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my
19 > GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE?
20 >
21 > I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e.
22 > default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example
23 > desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be
24 > interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can
25 > focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to
26 > date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked.
27
28 While I agree in principle within mixins, no one here is discussing
29 the QA affect of it- right now we can do visibility scans of
30 combinations of gnome + amd64 + 2010 because they're defined.
31
32 If there is a shift to having users do the combinations themselves
33 (rather then combining w/in tree), there won't be visibility scans for
34 it- end result, more broken deps should be able to slide by, more
35 horked cycles, etc.
36
37 A solution there would be useful- one that preferably doesn't involve
38 scanning every possible permutation of mixable profiles (you would
39 *not* like the speed affect that would have on repoman).
40 ~harring

Replies