On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > 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 ;
Ehh... There *is* no minimal 2005.1 profile. That has always been the point. The "2005.1" profile is "what we used for 2005.1" not "minimal set of bull that can build a machine on x86 that just happens to coincide with the 2005.1 release". If you want a "minimal" profile, make one. > 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). USE flags *only*, actually. Also, we haven't been building the profiles to be "optimal" for customization. We have been building them to "just work" for the most people. > 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 :) I'll agree with you here. Like I said, the x86 profile stuff, since *at least* 2004.0's and the beginning of cascades, has had all of this "cruft" in there already. Of course, I also don't think that a server profile should inherit from the current default-linux sub-profiles anyway, as they are more geared towards end-user machines, and instead should inherit from default-linux (possibly, maybe even just base) themselves and build up a very specific configuration for servers. Basically, you're saying that a whole ton of crap should be under default-linux, where I think nothing should really be under there except for the "default" profiles, and other profiles should have their own top-level, just like hardened or uclibc does. > > > 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. I have no problem with that. Check out profiles/default-linux/x86/dev and see if it would meet your needs. It does *not* inherit from x86, but from default-linux, so it is geared to be an "x86" replacement. This would keep everything else in the sub-profiles, such as 2005.1, etc. Basically, if you wanted a server profile, you'd inherit from profiles/default-linux/x86, not profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1, since the 2005.1 profile would have all the desktop stuff. > It's a time saving effort; add multiple inheritance in, and it's easy > to do (win/win). Agreed. With multiple inheritance, we all win, but see if this at least helps for now. I have no problem right now making the changes necessary (to x86, at least) to make the base arch profile "minimal" for you. > > > Aside from mild disagreement on views, as was stated in previous > > > emails, multiple inheritance I tend to think is required to minimize > > > the work for y'all; what I want you guys to do (or I'll do myself) is > > > chunk the suckers up so people after a minimal base for running > > > it themselves, or building up their own subprofile can do so. Not > > > after jamming maintenance nightmares on you, which without multiple > > > inheritance, might be a bit. > > > > I know that I won't be spending *my* time making any profile other than > > the defaults used for building the release. Anyone is welcome to build > > profiles for anything else that they might want, but since the release > > team doesn't use it, we shouldn't be forced to waste our time on it. > > Agreed, although I'd posit that when/if multiple inheritance is added, > y'all take advantage of it (break up the settings into base and > desktop) so that others can use your base work instead of reinventing > the wheel. That would be fine by me. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
