On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:40:00PM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:
> mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp:
> > Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support
> > multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion,
> > and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+.
> I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting
> for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your
> own cocktail.
> Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to
> only be able to focus on one small set.
> For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also
> using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to
> find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my
> GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE?
> I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e.
> default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example
> desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be
> interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can
> focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to
> date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked.
While I agree in principle within mixins, no one here is discussing
the QA affect of it- right now we can do visibility scans of
combinations of gnome + amd64 + 2010 because they're defined.
If there is a shift to having users do the combinations themselves
(rather then combining w/in tree), there won't be visibility scans for
it- end result, more broken deps should be able to slide by, more
horked cycles, etc.
A solution there would be useful- one that preferably doesn't involve
scanning every possible permutation of mixable profiles (you would
*not* like the speed affect that would have on repoman).