| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 23:56 -0500, Aaron Walker wrote: |
| 2 |
> Isn't profiles.desc just a list of *default* profiles though? We want a list |
| 3 |
> of all valid profiles. So I think we should either extend profiles.desc to |
| 4 |
> contain all valid profiles, or add a new file. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Either way would be fine by me, but portage would have to be modified to |
| 7 |
allow for multiple profiles to be listed per arch in profiles.desc |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Looking at profiles.desc did make me realize something though. If we do |
| 10 |
> decided to do a separate file, I think we should list the arch as well along |
| 11 |
> side the profile, kind of like profiles.desc does. This would allow us to get |
| 12 |
> a list of all valid profiles for a certain arch. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In the case that I need this for (the eclectic profiles module), it'd be much |
| 15 |
> better IMO to be able to show valid profiles for a certain arch since a valid |
| 16 |
> profile for sparc is obviously not a valid profile for x86. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Having a format of something like: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> alpha default-linux/alpha/2004.3 |
| 21 |
> alpha default-linux/alpha/2005.0 |
| 22 |
> ... |
| 23 |
> x86 default-linux/x86/2004.3 |
| 24 |
> ... |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> would be ideal IMO. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> comments? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
WORKSFORME |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
;] |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 35 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 36 |
Games - Developer |
| 37 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives