| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 23:53 +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: |
| 6 |
> | On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:11:49 -0500 Kumba <kumba@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | | EPROFILE="default:linux:mips:uclibc:selinux:ip30" |
| 8 |
> | |
| 9 |
> | Any advantage to this over a bunch of symlinks? |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> AFAIK symlinks can't be handled by CVS :-/ |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> On the other hand: Genone has an interesting proposal for multiple |
| 14 |
> entries in the profiles' "parent"-files. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yeah. The main difference is that my idea can be done by 2006.0 with no |
| 17 |
additional support in portage, and once multiple inheritance shows up in |
| 18 |
portage, can have the added benefit of multiple inheritances, similar to |
| 19 |
what Joshua proposed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Essentially, this reorganization would clean up the profile tree a bit, |
| 22 |
and wouldn't cause any problems with future concepts going into portage |
| 23 |
such as multiple parents. This means that you could, for example, have |
| 24 |
a hardened/linux/mips/uclibc/selinux/ip30 profile that inherits from the |
| 25 |
linux mips glibc ip30 profiles. Basically, you'd just have your |
| 26 |
end-point profiles doing the actual inheriting, except in cases where |
| 27 |
the end-point profile is only overriding a small part of the parent (eg. |
| 28 |
a 2.4 sub-profile). You would still get the mix and match abilities, |
| 29 |
and we don't have to wait on the portage folk. It also fits in with |
| 30 |
what they've already got on their radar, which makes it much easier to |
| 31 |
implement. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 35 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 36 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 37 |
Games - Developer |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives