| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:25 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:12:40 -0500 Chris Gianelloni |
| 3 |
> <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 19:31 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > AFAICS there's no way to tell whether a profile is "inherit only" or |
| 6 |
> | > whether it's complete enough to be used by an end user. Would it |
| 7 |
> | > make sense to have an empty text file called "inherit-only" (for |
| 8 |
> | > example) within profiles which aren't usable? |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | I was always under the impression that all profiles should be usable. |
| 11 |
> | If that is not the case, then I 100% agree that there should be some |
| 12 |
> | way of marking a profile as unusable. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Well, you couldn't really sanely run a system with your profile symlink |
| 15 |
> pointing to 'base' or 'default-linux'. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
...and like every time you assume something, somebody has to come out |
| 18 |
and point out the fact that you're an ass. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yeah, I hadn't considered default-linux or base. Though, to be honest, |
| 21 |
I bet you would have a working system with either of them, or at leats |
| 22 |
you should, even if it did keep from having arch or release-specific |
| 23 |
changes. After all, most of it would be the changes in virtuals, which |
| 24 |
so long as you emerged the right programs to satisfy the virtuals for |
| 25 |
your arch, you should be fine with either of these. However, you are |
| 26 |
definitely correct that you can no select one of these profiles, do an |
| 27 |
"emerge system" and expect it to work without some intervention. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager |
| 32 |
Games - Developer |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives