Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles

[Alec Warner]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0400, warnera6@×××××××.edu wrote:
>
>
>> I think Brian mentioned /etc/portage/profile and other fun portage tricks
>>to mess with the default profile.  If you think the profile shouldn't be
>>changed then don't make it a mutable option.  If you think that bugs
>>where people fubared their profile are a problem then write a tool to
>>print out that information and have the user present it to you when they
>>file the bug.
>>
>>
>
>What?  I was saying that *we* shouldn't have to waste *our* time making
>profiles we won't use.  End of discussion.  If you want a
>"warner6-wuz-here" profile under default-linux/x86 that turned off all
>the USE flags and only enabled USE="yes-I-really-only-want-this-one-USE"
>then you could.  We won't stop you, nor will we care to stop you.  We
>wouldn't even complain.
>
>
>>As far as maintainability, you could always make a profile outside of the
>>default-linux tree ( default-gentoo/* ) and construct the
>>smaller/faster/better profiles there.  That means anyone that wants to
>>
>>
>
>No.  *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time.  I care
>about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the
>release.  If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care.
>
>
>
and *I* can't make a tree-wide server profile because *I* don't have a) 
commit access and b) a minimal profile to derive from other than 
default-linux, and thats yours and you said you will not let it be 
changed.  Plus default-linux is far too minimal.  So *I* have to jump on 
-dev and convince others ( not necessarily you, mind ) that a profile of 
this nature is a good idea, so *I* don't end up having to duplicate tons 
of work making a default profile for every arch I run.

>That being said, I wouldn't want anyone changing the profile I used to
>build the release.
>
>If I do a stage3 today and a stage3 tomorrow, both using the same
>profile, then do an "emerge gnome" on each, I would expect it to have
>the same USE flags.  This is a simple matter of reproducibility and
>predictability.
>
>
>
>>customize can change the symlink and you ( releng ) still get your
>>pristine  release profiles ( which IMHO is a silly notion, but I don't
>>manage your bugs, so whichever way you like ;) ).  Going on that notion,
>>
>>
>
>I am really shooting for predictability with the profiles that are
>managed by releng.
>
>
>
>>you could also do default-linux/x86/2005.1/release or whatnot if you want
>>to maintain that as well.
>>
>>
>
>Why?  Would you not expect the 2005.1 Handbook plus the 2005.1 media
>plus the 2005.1 profile to produce a 2005.1 system?  Why would I need a
>"release" sub-profile to distinguish it as a release?  Is that not
>completely redundant?
>
>
The plan with having a release sub-profile was making the 
default-linux/${ARCH}/${RELEASE}/ a minimal profile and then have the 
/release subprofile be 'normal', and taking a second look really no 
different from a "desktop" subprofile other than better naming.

as far as profiles, there is no documentation that I can find on who 
'owns' profiles and does work on them.  Sorry if you end up doing all 
the work on default-linux, I will focus my efforts elsewhere if that is 
the case.  I just know that for the majority of profiles 
default-linux/arch is what most of them inherit from, so thats where the 
party started ;)

-Alec Warner (antarus)


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list