| 1 |
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 18:52:33 Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes: |
| 3 |
> >> Alan, what does it get you? In fact what does `developer' buy you? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > x86/10.0 gives you a baseline for that release |
| 6 |
> > x86/10.0/desktop|developer|server give you a profile more suited |
| 7 |
> > (tweaked) for that kind of usage. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> [...] |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Nice.. thanks |
| 12 |
> I see I already have most of use flags in the desktop, and already |
| 13 |
> have apache and mysql too.. so looks like I'm good to go but for |
| 14 |
> changing the symlink. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
A useful side-effect showed up with profiles in the last few days. |
| 17 |
Openoffice.org integration with KDE is broken - sometimes it doesn't build, |
| 18 |
sometimes it doesn't run and as the devs try out new patches it actually |
| 19 |
sometimes works :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As a user, you want to be insulated from this nonsense of stuff breaking |
| 22 |
mysteriously. So appropriate masks go into profiles, where you simply cannot |
| 23 |
enable a certain USE flag for a specific package if it will not work. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This particular case went into base/ so every profile benefited. But if it |
| 26 |
affected just say Intel, then the current x86 and amd64 profiles desktop could |
| 27 |
have been updated and you would benefit. Using an ultra-minimal (or not |
| 28 |
supported anymore) profile, you wouldn't. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives