Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:12:19 +0100
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:23:35 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic
> > infrastructure for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to
> > keep it simple, and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able
> > to start defining some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole
> > profile tree.
> >
> > Most important points:
> >
> > 1. Mix-ins are applied on top of base profile (which works the same as
> > before),
> >
> > 2. Mix-ins are supported via 'eselect profile'
> > replacing /etc/portage/make.profile symlink with a directory, without
> > need for Portage patching (this is how Funtoo does it),
> >
> > 3. Most important mix-ins are used to construct base profiles which
> > provides both backwards compatibility and proper targets for repoman
> > (to avoid having to check all possible mix-in combinations).
> >
> > Complete text:
> >
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Mix-ins
>
>
> Dont we need to restrict what is allowed in mixins profiles ?
> It doesn't have to be in the glep, but I think it'd be good to have.

At some point, probably yes. I wanted to start with a GLEP to have
technical basics, then see how it all works out. I don't consider
myself capable of predicting it all right now.

> For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can end
> up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch.
> Arguably, desktop profiles relying on having an useflag forced on a
> given package are already semi-broken: they'd be better with the
> useflag default enabled and proper usedeps, so the mask/force game
> doesnt seem really useful for mixins.

That's why if you do such a thing, you would have to declare a regular
profile using this mix-in for repoman to test.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>