Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
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: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:44:40
Message-Id: b41005391003081444r33faed3dy9b2e7e3dcf9edd76@mail.gmail.com
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 Hehe,
2
3 http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/essays/mixin-profiles.txt
4
5 -rw-r--r-- 1 antarus users 2653 Jun 4 2006 mixin-profiles.txt
6
7 -A
8
9 On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Peter Hjalmarsson <xake@×××××××××.net> wrote:
10 > mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp:
11 >
12 >> Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support
13 >> multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion,
14 >> and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+.
15 >>
16 >
17 >
18 > I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting
19 > for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your
20 > own cocktail.
21 > Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to
22 > only be able to focus on one small set.
23 >
24 > For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also
25 > using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to
26 > find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my
27 > GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE?
28 >
29 > I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e.
30 > default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example
31 > desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be
32 > interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can
33 > focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to
34 > date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked.
35 >
36 >
37 >
38 >