| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:56:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 05:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> Basically, you've taken then 2005.1 profile and made it useless, since |
| 4 |
> the stages weren't built against it anyway. |
| 5 |
Via that logic (don't change it lest it negates a release), we would |
| 6 |
never be able to do changes, or would be forced to do changes strictly |
| 7 |
whenever y'all are doing a new release. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Profiles aren't bound to the releases, despite how people may view it |
| 10 |
and/or the current profile maitnainer's usage of 'em. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> My point is pretty simple, |
| 13 |
> why should we spend a bunch of time maintaining something that is |
| 14 |
> designed from the start to be customized, and most likely won't even be |
| 15 |
> used anyway? |
| 16 |
That's the issue; the profiles in their current form are customizable |
| 17 |
only in the ability to negate a collection of flags. |
| 18 |
Negating the whole beast is another story due to the desktop cruft |
| 19 |
being shoved into the arch subprofiles. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I would much rather stick with the "2005.1" profile |
| 22 |
> meaning "what we used to build 2005.1" than having it mean "some |
| 23 |
> variation of 2005.1 is below here and using this profile is minimal and |
| 24 |
> likely won't do what you expect". |
| 25 |
Again, releases may be bound by available profiles, but available profiles |
| 26 |
are not bound by available releases. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Aside from that, the comments about variations/minimal/not doing what |
| 29 |
you expect, what do you think USE="-* user's actual desired flags" |
| 30 |
accomplishes? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Profile customization occurs, /etc/portage/profiles exists for this |
| 33 |
reason; the 2005.1 profile (fex) is probably *rarely* ran exactly as |
| 34 |
y'all have it specified considering we do have user level use flags, |
| 35 |
tweaking the hell out of '05.1. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Aside from mild disagreement on views, as was stated in previous |
| 38 |
emails, multiple inheritance I tend to think is required to minimize |
| 39 |
the work for y'all; what I want you guys to do (or I'll do myself) is |
| 40 |
chunk the suckers up so people after a minimal base for running |
| 41 |
it themselves, or building up their own subprofile can do so. Not |
| 42 |
after jamming maintenance nightmares on you, which without multiple |
| 43 |
inheritance, might be a bit. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
~harring |
Archives