| 1 |
AllenJB wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 3 |
>> We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the |
| 4 |
>> time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also, |
| 5 |
>> there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the |
| 6 |
>> time is right to start working on a new set of profiles. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3 |
| 9 |
>> useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some |
| 10 |
>> suggestions as well. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Haven't the devs just been making changes directly to the profiles since |
| 13 |
> at least autobuilds came about? I'm sure I've seen some global use flag |
| 14 |
> changes relatively recently. What is the actual policy on this? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It seems kind of pointless to me to tie global use flag changes to a |
| 17 |
> release cycle when per-package use flags are now changed "on a whim" |
| 18 |
> (with EAPI-2 style default use flags) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think a release cycle is most useful for handling incompatible |
| 21 |
changes. This allows us to make changes in newer releases that might |
| 22 |
break older package managers. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>> Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles |
| 25 |
>> were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we |
| 26 |
>> have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore, |
| 27 |
>> which is why I address the wider dev community. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename |
| 30 |
> the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does |
| 31 |
> seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the |
| 32 |
> 2009 profiles are. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Maybe, but you could also look at this as a documentation/training |
| 35 |
issue. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> What does Gentoo use versioned profiles for now that use flag changes, |
| 38 |
> in particular per-package use flags, don't seem to be linked at all. |
| 39 |
> What should they be used for? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
As said above, incompatible changes. However, it might be nice to |
| 42 |
offer some unversioned profiles for power-users who update regularly |
| 43 |
and aren't concerned about compatibility issues. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Is this going to be another thing that isn't updated in the Handbooks? |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
>> Please share your ideas on this. |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> Cheers, |
| 50 |
>> Ben |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Thanks, |
| 57 |
Zac |
Archives