| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:48:20PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> What other changes are you guys thinking of regarding profiles? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
That would be Marius's department. I'm not willing (personally) to |
| 5 |
look at revamping profiles till rewrite is finished. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
At that point, new profile's should be able to be just plugged in; I |
| 8 |
don't care to bite off any more then I already have ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Offhand, I'd expect the removal of package filtering in the packages |
| 11 |
files (package.mask provides this already), probably a bit of renaming |
| 12 |
of packages also. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Why? Packages is vague. Stupid reason to change it I realize, but |
| 15 |
packages makes sense in a single set, 'system' set view. Rearrange it |
| 16 |
so that packages isn't auto assumed to be system, stick it in a subdir |
| 17 |
fex, and you would give profiles the capability to arbitrarily define |
| 18 |
their own sets. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Aside from that, the parent implementation could stand a tweak or two. |
| 21 |
Further, assuming metapkg goes through, virtual is obsoleted. The |
| 22 |
inclusion of GRP_STAGE23_USE also bugs me a bit; yes it works right |
| 23 |
now, but what happens when you need to push more info in? Seems like |
| 24 |
it should be contained on it's own. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Either way, just a couple of things off the top of my head. My main |
| 27 |
push for it is cleanup for stand alone repositories, and ensuring |
| 28 |
anything people attempt with profiles doesn't have side effects on the |
| 29 |
raw repositories metadata. |
| 30 |
~harring |
Archives