1 |
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> Basically stating that if I want the minimal 2005.1 x86 profile to |
3 |
> build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing |
4 |
> default-linux/x86/2005.1 ; |
5 |
|
6 |
Ehh... There *is* no minimal 2005.1 profile. That has always been the |
7 |
point. The "2005.1" profile is "what we used for 2005.1" not "minimal |
8 |
set of bull that can build a machine on x86 that just happens to |
9 |
coincide with the 2005.1 release". If you want a "minimal" profile, |
10 |
make one. |
11 |
|
12 |
> Why? Mainly due to the fact that I would be forced to reverse a *lot* |
13 |
> of stuff, use flags mainly, to get it back down to a minimal profile. |
14 |
> That's what I mean by lack of customization; it can be done, but it's |
15 |
> not optimal, vs say inheriting a base default/x86/2005.1 that holds |
16 |
> just system defaults (pam, cflags, etc). |
17 |
|
18 |
USE flags *only*, actually. |
19 |
|
20 |
Also, we haven't been building the profiles to be "optimal" for |
21 |
customization. We have been building them to "just work" for the most |
22 |
people. |
23 |
|
24 |
> If I were to implement a server profile from existing, I'd probably |
25 |
> tag in -* to the use, and add the use flags I explicitly want; that's |
26 |
> not really the best way to use the profiles inheritance capabilities |
27 |
> though :) |
28 |
|
29 |
I'll agree with you here. Like I said, the x86 profile stuff, since *at |
30 |
least* 2004.0's and the beginning of cascades, has had all of this |
31 |
"cruft" in there already. |
32 |
|
33 |
Of course, I also don't think that a server profile should inherit from |
34 |
the current default-linux sub-profiles anyway, as they are more geared |
35 |
towards end-user machines, and instead should inherit from default-linux |
36 |
(possibly, maybe even just base) themselves and build up a very specific |
37 |
configuration for servers. Basically, you're saying that a whole ton of |
38 |
crap should be under default-linux, where I think nothing should really |
39 |
be under there except for the "default" profiles, and other profiles |
40 |
should have their own top-level, just like hardened or uclibc does. |
41 |
|
42 |
> > > Profile customization occurs, /etc/portage/profiles exists for this |
43 |
> > > reason; the 2005.1 profile (fex) is probably *rarely* ran exactly as |
44 |
> > > y'all have it specified considering we do have user level use flags, |
45 |
> > > tweaking the hell out of '05.1. |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > You would be surprised at the number of people that use GRP and rarely, |
48 |
> > if ever, change their USE flags. I wish I had numbers, but I don't. |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > Anyway, the default set of USE flags seems to be a pretty perfect mix |
51 |
> > for most people. It gives packages that work as expected, and is geared |
52 |
> > toward a desktop system. Without any more specific examples of what |
53 |
> > you're trying to point out, I'm just not seeing it. |
54 |
> Key thing to note, neither of us have figures :) |
55 |
> Beyond that, I'm not after castrating the defaults that exist, I'm |
56 |
> after sticking a level of indirection, a subprofile into the releng |
57 |
> profile inheritance chain so that if I *want* a minimal profile (as |
58 |
> you use), I can get it without having to resort to -* and tracking all |
59 |
> of the changes myself. |
60 |
|
61 |
I have no problem with that. Check out profiles/default-linux/x86/dev |
62 |
and see if it would meet your needs. It does *not* inherit from x86, |
63 |
but from default-linux, so it is geared to be an "x86" replacement. |
64 |
This would keep everything else in the sub-profiles, such as 2005.1, |
65 |
etc. |
66 |
|
67 |
Basically, if you wanted a server profile, you'd inherit from |
68 |
profiles/default-linux/x86, not profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1, since |
69 |
the 2005.1 profile would have all the desktop stuff. |
70 |
|
71 |
> It's a time saving effort; add multiple inheritance in, and it's easy |
72 |
> to do (win/win). |
73 |
|
74 |
Agreed. With multiple inheritance, we all win, but see if this at least |
75 |
helps for now. I have no problem right now making the changes necessary |
76 |
(to x86, at least) to make the base arch profile "minimal" for you. |
77 |
|
78 |
> > > Aside from mild disagreement on views, as was stated in previous |
79 |
> > > emails, multiple inheritance I tend to think is required to minimize |
80 |
> > > the work for y'all; what I want you guys to do (or I'll do myself) is |
81 |
> > > chunk the suckers up so people after a minimal base for running |
82 |
> > > it themselves, or building up their own subprofile can do so. Not |
83 |
> > > after jamming maintenance nightmares on you, which without multiple |
84 |
> > > inheritance, might be a bit. |
85 |
> > |
86 |
> > I know that I won't be spending *my* time making any profile other than |
87 |
> > the defaults used for building the release. Anyone is welcome to build |
88 |
> > profiles for anything else that they might want, but since the release |
89 |
> > team doesn't use it, we shouldn't be forced to waste our time on it. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> Agreed, although I'd posit that when/if multiple inheritance is added, |
92 |
> y'all take advantage of it (break up the settings into base and |
93 |
> desktop) so that others can use your base work instead of reinventing |
94 |
> the wheel. |
95 |
|
96 |
That would be fine by me. |
97 |
|
98 |
-- |
99 |
Chris Gianelloni |
100 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
101 |
Games - Developer |
102 |
Gentoo Linux |