| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0400, warnera6@×××××××.edu wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think Brian mentioned /etc/portage/profile and other fun portage tricks |
| 3 |
> to mess with the default profile. If you think the profile shouldn't be |
| 4 |
> changed then don't make it a mutable option. If you think that bugs |
| 5 |
> where people fubared their profile are a problem then write a tool to |
| 6 |
> print out that information and have the user present it to you when they |
| 7 |
> file the bug. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
What? I was saying that *we* shouldn't have to waste *our* time making |
| 10 |
profiles we won't use. End of discussion. If you want a |
| 11 |
"warner6-wuz-here" profile under default-linux/x86 that turned off all |
| 12 |
the USE flags and only enabled USE="yes-I-really-only-want-this-one-USE" |
| 13 |
then you could. We won't stop you, nor will we care to stop you. We |
| 14 |
wouldn't even complain. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> As far as maintainability, you could always make a profile outside of the |
| 17 |
> default-linux tree ( default-gentoo/* ) and construct the |
| 18 |
> smaller/faster/better profiles there. That means anyone that wants to |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No. *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time. I care |
| 21 |
about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the |
| 22 |
release. If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That being said, I wouldn't want anyone changing the profile I used to |
| 25 |
build the release. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If I do a stage3 today and a stage3 tomorrow, both using the same |
| 28 |
profile, then do an "emerge gnome" on each, I would expect it to have |
| 29 |
the same USE flags. This is a simple matter of reproducibility and |
| 30 |
predictability. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> customize can change the symlink and you ( releng ) still get your |
| 33 |
> pristine release profiles ( which IMHO is a silly notion, but I don't |
| 34 |
> manage your bugs, so whichever way you like ;) ). Going on that notion, |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I am really shooting for predictability with the profiles that are |
| 37 |
managed by releng. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> you could also do default-linux/x86/2005.1/release or whatnot if you want |
| 40 |
> to maintain that as well. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Why? Would you not expect the 2005.1 Handbook plus the 2005.1 media |
| 43 |
plus the 2005.1 profile to produce a 2005.1 system? Why would I need a |
| 44 |
"release" sub-profile to distinguish it as a release? Is that not |
| 45 |
completely redundant? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 49 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 50 |
Games - Developer |
| 51 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives