| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 15:36 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:27:34PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > This could still be done under profiles. Personally, I like the idea of |
| 4 |
> > something more like this: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > project/os/arch/version for profiles |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > This would give us something like this: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > default/linux/x86/2006.0 |
| 11 |
> > default/freebsd/alpha/2006.0 |
| 12 |
> > hardened/linux/amd64/2006.0/2.4 |
| 13 |
> > hardened/freebsd/x86/2006.0 |
| 14 |
> > uclibc/linux/mips/2006.0/cobalt |
| 15 |
> > server/linux/x86/2006.0 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I like... |
| 18 |
> That's pretty much what I'm aiming for; not after forcing *you* to do |
| 19 |
> server/etc, just would prefer to see it structured so that others can |
| 20 |
> do so. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I might just go ahead and do this (at least the default/linux part) for |
| 23 |
2006.0, so we can slowly transition away from the default-linux stuff as |
| 24 |
we deprecate older profiles. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> That said, initial email was worded a bit strongly, so pardon ;) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
No problem... it happens when one speaks of something they're passionate |
| 29 |
about. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > > Two scenarios for how this will result in visible issues for people- |
| 32 |
> > > 1) CVS users, aka, devs. Devs *should* be running latest portage, |
| 33 |
> > > which would know about the shift. If they're running an older |
| 34 |
> > > portage version and aren't willing to upgrade, they tag the |
| 35 |
> > > symlinks themselves. It's a minor annoyance frankly; assuming they |
| 36 |
> > > read -dev (like they're suppossed to :P ), they'll know in advance |
| 37 |
> > > it's coming. |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > Many devs use the latest stable versions of packages rather than testing |
| 40 |
> > versions. I tend to find this to be a good thing as there are often |
| 41 |
> > bugs in particular combinations of package versions that aren't |
| 42 |
> > necessarily spotted when running all ~arch. |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> > Also, devs are not required to read or even be subscribed to -dev. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Agreed. Implicit in all this is that I'm going to have to make a bit |
| 47 |
> of noise (and probably attempt and get it shoved out via gwn) prior to |
| 48 |
> doing it, so that I don't have ~100 devs who didn't hear the news |
| 49 |
> looking in my direction. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
What other changes are you guys thinking of regarding profiles? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 55 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 56 |
Games - Developer |
| 57 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives