Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Monday 01 August 2005 10:22 am, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 01 August 2005 10:15 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > - x86/linux24 (deprecated) > > > - x86/linux26 (deprecated) > > > > What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking > > against them? > > > > I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think? > > speaking of which, i had an idea to clean up all that crap, i just forgot > to post it a while back ... > > gentoo-x86/profiles/ $ tree obsolete > obsolete > > then we can punt all the flat profiles and if a user needs an upgrade path, > they can symlink to these in the meantime well, no one has said anything about this so i'll go ahead and punt all remaining flat profiles and add this obsolete tree once 2005.1 is released in other words, these people will be served: default-alpha-1.4 default-alpha-2004.0 default-macos-10.3 default-macos-10.4 default-ppc default-ppc-1.0 default-ppc-1.4 default-ppc-2004.0 default-ppc-2004.1 default-ppc-2004.2 default-ppc-2004.3 default-ppc64-2004.2 default-ppc64-2004.3 default-sparc-1.4 default-sparc-2004.0 default-sparc64-1.4 default-sparc64-2004.0 default-x86-2004.2 default-x86-obsd-2004 gcc33-sparc64-1.4 hardened-x86-2004.0 -mike -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Chris Gianelloni wrote: I especially need to know which profiles are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd. Here is the state of macos profiles: Valid: default-darwin/ - macos/10.3 - macos/10.4 - macos/progressive Deprecated: default-macos/* default-macos-10.3/ default-macos-10.4/ Thanks, -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Monday 01 August 2005 16:46, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:21 +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: > > On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid > > > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone > > > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or > > > not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux, > > > as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles > > > are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles > > > are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd. > > > > vserver/* > > Not true. > > vserver itself is not a valid profile. This is exactly why I am asking > for this information. From what I can tell, only vserver/x86 is valid. well, you're right... just thought it's enough to state that everything in vserver/ is valid ;) -- He who asks a question is a fool for a minute, He who doesn't ask is a fool for a lifetime. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:21 +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: > On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid > > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone > > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or > > not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux, > > as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles > > are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles > > are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd. > > > > vserver/* Not true. vserver itself is not a valid profile. This is exactly why I am asking for this information. From what I can tell, only vserver/x86 is valid. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Monday 01 August 2005 10:15 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > - x86/linux24 (deprecated) > > - x86/linux26 (deprecated) > > What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking > against them? > > I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think? speaking of which, i had an idea to clean up all that crap, i just forgot to post it a while back ... gentoo-x86/profiles/ $ tree obsolete obsolete |-- README |-- alpha | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- amd64 | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- hppa | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- ia64 | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- mips | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- ppc | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- ppc64 | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults |-- sparc | |-- deprecated | `-- make.defaults `-- x86 |-- deprecated `-- make.defaults 9 directories, 19 files then we can punt all the flat profiles and if a user needs an upgrade path, they can symlink to these in the meantime -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > - x86/linux24 (deprecated) > - x86/linux26 (deprecated) What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking against them? I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or > not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux, > as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles > are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles > are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd. > vserver/* -- He who asks a question is a fool for a minute, He who doesn't ask is a fool for a lifetime. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:11 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or > not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux, > as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles > are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles > are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd. Standard Hardened Glibc: - amd64 (valid) - ppc (valid) - ppc64 (valid) - x86 (valid) - x86/2.6 (valid) Embedded/uClibc: - arm (valid) - arm/2.4 (valid) - arm/armeb (valid) - arm/armeb/2.4 (valid) - mips (valid) - mips/hardened (valid) - mips/mipsel (valid) - mips/mipsel/hardened (valid) - ppc (valid) - ppc/hardened (valid) - x86 (valid) - x86/2.4 (valid) - x86/hardened (valid) - x86/hardened/2.4 (valid) - x86/linux24 (deprecated) - x86/linux26 (deprecated) > Thanks, > > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager > Games - Developer > Gentoo Linux -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Valid Profiles
ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux, as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd. Thanks, -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
