| 1 |
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 05:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> What I'm advocating is that the '05 profile (fex) tag in the defaults |
| 3 |
> for that profile release, desktop/server agnostic, *system* |
| 4 |
> defaults, eg toolchain, pam, nptl, etc. The subprofile the user |
| 5 |
> chooses (the desktop or server target) building upon those base |
| 6 |
> settngs. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Multiple inherits for profiles is the main reason I'm not pushing on |
| 9 |
> this; shifting desktop cruft out of the bases (my definition of base |
| 10 |
> mind you) requires pulling from (fex) x86/2005.1 + desktop/2005.1 . |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Currently, the versioned profiles match what we use for building the |
| 13 |
release. The 2005.1 profile is the USE flags used to build the 2005.1 |
| 14 |
release. This makes complete sense to me and is the way it has been |
| 15 |
done in the past. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Making the changes that you propose would require a 2005.1/desktop |
| 18 |
profile to be used for building GRP. The problem with this is it would |
| 19 |
also require that the same profile be used for building the stages. |
| 20 |
Basically, you've taken then 2005.1 profile and made it useless, since |
| 21 |
the stages weren't built against it anyway. My point is pretty simple, |
| 22 |
why should we spend a bunch of time maintaining something that is |
| 23 |
designed from the start to be customized, and most likely won't even be |
| 24 |
used anyway? I would much rather stick with the "2005.1" profile |
| 25 |
meaning "what we used to build 2005.1" than having it mean "some |
| 26 |
variation of 2005.1 is below here and using this profile is minimal and |
| 27 |
likely won't do what you expect". |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 32 |
Games - Developer |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives