| 1 |
OK. Here is my take on profiles and USE. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
First of all, the "default-linux/$arch/$relver" profiles will *always* |
| 4 |
match what we use to build GRP for the releases. There's no discussion |
| 5 |
here, as this will not be changed. Adding additional sub-profiles |
| 6 |
really is a stupid idea and a waste of developer time. If a user cannot |
| 7 |
put -flag into make.conf, why should we really have to cater to this |
| 8 |
level of ignorance? Point them to the documentation on USE flags and be |
| 9 |
done with it. I mean no offense to anyone, but wasting our limited |
| 10 |
development time maintaining n profiles that are all similar is rather |
| 11 |
pointless. If you look at what has been done with profiles recently, we |
| 12 |
have been working to make the default-linux/$arch profiles very |
| 13 |
minimal/generic, allowing people to create their own profiles that |
| 14 |
inherit these minimal profiles. I don't really think we should spend |
| 15 |
the time creating profiles for each of the possible setups our users |
| 16 |
could want. There is a single "desktop" profile right now. It is the |
| 17 |
default profile for each release version. Making a "Gnome" or "KDE" |
| 18 |
profile just opens us up to countless bugs from users wanting *their* |
| 19 |
defaults into a profile. What we end up with is 20 "desktop" profiles |
| 20 |
for each architecture and wasting a ton of time. I would much rather |
| 21 |
tell users to read the documentation and have them learn how to maintain |
| 22 |
their systems, than try to cater to every whim of every user, since |
| 23 |
everyone will want something different. Perhaps allowing for longer USE |
| 24 |
descriptions would work? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 28 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 29 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 30 |
Games - Developer |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives