| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:39 AM <nado@××××××××××.be> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Why not introducing a new level in the hierarchy ? Something like "common" could be fit. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> default/linux/amd64/13.0 |
| 7 |
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common |
| 8 |
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/desktop |
| 9 |
> default/linux/amd64/13.0/common/developer |
| 10 |
> ... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> By doing so we could still have a bare profiles with minimal things set to work, and have the |
| 13 |
> common subset with sane defaults for most users. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think one of the issues is that our docs/defaults and the mentality |
| 16 |
of our users tends to drive them to what looks like the most basic |
| 17 |
starting point. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think that having a base profile intended just as an inheritance |
| 20 |
point for other profiles makes sense technically, but it may not |
| 21 |
actually be a good default for end-users. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you set up the example above, how many would would still pick 13.0 |
| 24 |
as their starting point, and not common? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Now, there is nothing that says that inheritance has to follow the |
| 27 |
directory tree. We could have a |
| 28 |
default/linux/amd64/13.0/donotuse/core profile that everything |
| 29 |
inherits, and make that the minimal one. It just means that most |
| 30 |
profiles under 13.0 wouldn't inherit 13.0. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
To some degree we may have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by |
| 33 |
presenting this as a heirarchy, as it tends to force the bottom of the |
| 34 |
heirarchy to be the best profile for inheritance, when it is also the |
| 35 |
first thing users see as well. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives