Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:43:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
<snip>
Re: not shoving work onto you, complicating your job, etc, I agree,
and actually is what I was getting at in the badly worded section
below
My point is pretty simple,
why should we spend a bunch of time maintaining something that is
designed from the start to be customized, and most likely won't even be
used anyway?
That's the issue; the profiles in their current form are customizable
only in the ability to negate a collection of flags.
Negating the whole beast is another story due to the desktop cruft
being shoved into the arch subprofiles.
Sorry, but this didn't make a bit of sense to me. Perhaps you could
reword it?
Basically stating that if I want the minimal 2005.1 x86 profile to
build my own server profile off of, I can't really use the existing
default-linux/x86/2005.1 ;
Why? Mainly due to the fact that I would be forced to reverse a *lot*
of stuff, use flags mainly, to get it back down to a minimal profile.
That's what I mean by lack of customization; it can be done, but it's
not optimal, vs say inheriting a base default/x86/2005.1 that holds
just system defaults (pam, cflags, etc).
If I were to implement a server profile from existing, I'd probably
tag in -* to the use, and add the use flags I explicitly want; that's
not really the best way to use the profiles inheritance capabilities
though :)
Profile customization occurs, /etc/portage/profiles exists for this
reason; the 2005.1 profile (fex) is probably *rarely* ran exactly as
y'all have it specified considering we do have user level use flags,
tweaking the hell out of '05.1.
You would be surprised at the number of people that use GRP and rarely,
if ever, change their USE flags. I wish I had numbers, but I don't.
Anyway, the default set of USE flags seems to be a pretty perfect mix
for most people. It gives packages that work as expected, and is geared
toward a desktop system. Without any more specific examples of what
you're trying to point out, I'm just not seeing it.
Key thing to note, neither of us have figures :)
Beyond that, I'm not after castrating the defaults that exist, I'm
after sticking a level of indirection, a subprofile into the releng
profile inheritance chain so that if I *want* a minimal profile (as
you use), I can get it without having to resort to -* and tracking all
of the changes myself.
It's a time saving effort; add multiple inheritance in, and it's easy
to do (win/win).
It'd be very handy , what if we setup a limit of subprofiles so to avoid
people requesting other subprofiles?, and at the same time we can take more
advantage of this idea?
For example, we could have, a minimal, a default, and a custom subprofile.
minimal would contain , well, as the word says, the minimal configuration,
so everyone willing to have only "USE=-* basic-stuff" , can get it out
of the box.
default would be the profile which releng link the releases against. Our
current
profile.
custom would be some way of people to tweak and do whatever they want ..
this would be
more like a way to give some kind of organization.
With this kind of structure, we are still pretty general to fall into a
"I want a Gnome profile" ,
but we can still take advantage of the feature for specific needs, and
makes easier in such
a way.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
