| 1 |
mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support |
| 4 |
> multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion, |
| 5 |
> and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting |
| 10 |
for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your |
| 11 |
own cocktail. |
| 12 |
Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to |
| 13 |
only be able to focus on one small set. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also |
| 16 |
using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to |
| 17 |
find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my |
| 18 |
GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e. |
| 21 |
default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example |
| 22 |
desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be |
| 23 |
interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can |
| 24 |
focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to |
| 25 |
date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked. |
Archives