| 1 |
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:23:35 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi, everyone. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic |
| 7 |
> infrastructure for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to |
| 8 |
> keep it simple, and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able |
| 9 |
> to start defining some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole |
| 10 |
> profile tree. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Most important points: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. Mix-ins are applied on top of base profile (which works the same as |
| 15 |
> before), |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 2. Mix-ins are supported via 'eselect profile' |
| 18 |
> replacing /etc/portage/make.profile symlink with a directory, without |
| 19 |
> need for Portage patching (this is how Funtoo does it), |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> 3. Most important mix-ins are used to construct base profiles which |
| 22 |
> provides both backwards compatibility and proper targets for repoman |
| 23 |
> (to avoid having to check all possible mix-in combinations). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Complete text: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Mix-ins |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dont we need to restrict what is allowed in mixins profiles ? |
| 31 |
It doesn't have to be in the glep, but I think it'd be good to have. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can end |
| 35 |
up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch. |
| 36 |
Arguably, desktop profiles relying on having an useflag forced on a |
| 37 |
given package are already semi-broken: they'd be better with the |
| 38 |
useflag default enabled and proper usedeps, so the mask/force game |
| 39 |
doesnt seem really useful for mixins. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
It'd also be great to have "rules" ensuring all mixins commute, but I |
| 43 |
doubt that's easily doable. |
Archives