1 |
mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support |
4 |
> multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion, |
5 |
> and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+. |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting |
10 |
for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your |
11 |
own cocktail. |
12 |
Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to |
13 |
only be able to focus on one small set. |
14 |
|
15 |
For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also |
16 |
using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to |
17 |
find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my |
18 |
GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE? |
19 |
|
20 |
I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e. |
21 |
default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example |
22 |
desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be |
23 |
interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can |
24 |
focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to |
25 |
date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked. |