| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Am Mittwoch 25 Juni 2014, 15:11:40 schrieb Rich Freeman: |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Long story short, doing anything to Gentoo profiles is utter pain |
| 6 |
>> > and comes with random breakage guarantee. Therefore, I'm asking -- nuke |
| 7 |
>> > those damn profiles, and start over! The current situation is |
| 8 |
>> > completely unmaintainable. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> ++ |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> But, would it make sense to just go the Funtoo route with "mix-ins." |
| 13 |
> ++ |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> this is what we've been just discussing on the irc channel |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So, not wanting this to die on the vine. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If we did the mix-in approach, would we just follow the example of Funtoo? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
They use an arch profile, a stability profile (~arch vs arch), a |
| 22 |
"flavor" profile (core, minimal, desktop), and then users can layer as |
| 23 |
much other stuff on top of that as they want (gnome, kde, multimedia, |
| 24 |
etc). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Do we want to do things the same way? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Some things to think about include multilib (just another arch?), |
| 29 |
systemd, and usr-merge. I'm not saying that we need to implement any |
| 30 |
of that stuff completely - but when planning the profile layout we |
| 31 |
should at least consider whether it will handle things like this in |
| 32 |
the future. Should some types of profiles be only additive? Etc... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives