Brian Harring wrote:
The thing to note is that if you're relying on negation, it's going to
bite you in the ass without efforts. A server subprofile pulling from
a parent that holds desktop cruft will be forced to either
A) reinvent the wheel (maintain their own USE list), as a sizable
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 23:36, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges.. Most of the herd devs only
have x86 and are not able to test amd64. That's the main difference.
Most of the mips devs
Stephen Bennett wrote: [Tue Aug 30 2005, 11:26:40AM CDT]
With your experience what are the pro and cons of merging different
archs ?
Fewer different keywords to manage makes for easier maintenance in most
cases. If mips had 6 different keywords for different ABIs/endianness
we'd never get
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
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
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
No. *I* could not because *I* think it is a waste of time. I care
about exactly one profile, in honesty, the one I use to build the
release. If there were 10,000 other profiles, I wouldn't care.
and *I* can't make a tree-wide server
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the other
arches have to follow to be part of Gentoo.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
Sorry I disagree with this, differences
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:01 +0200, Francesco R wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
Sorry I
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:46:20 +0200
Francesco R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never said this, I've a dual opteron running informix that can *only*
run under a x86 environment.
this is the profile for the main environment:
make.profile - ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0
and this
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 11:24 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between
On 30/8/2005 10:46:54, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could *easily*
be covered under the same keyword?
The big reason I think, is that few x86 people have a clue about amd64.
Contrast this with the mips team; I'd guess
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth
time that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the
other arches have to
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 15:57 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth
time that x86 is an
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
tree that needs to be patched to work on AMD64 so we cannot cover
AMD64/x86 under
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
tree that needs to be
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
| and its their responsability to do their QA.
QA needs coordination. Otherwise we end up with repeats of the Gnome
not building on stable x86 for
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
| and its their responsability to do their QA.
QA needs coordination. Otherwise we end up
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:16:09 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on
| | x86 and
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges.. Most of the herd devs only have
x86 and are not able to test amd64. That's the main difference.
Most of the mips devs only have 64-bit big endian SGI hardware, and
aren't able to
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 16:45 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 21:30 -0500, Kito wrote:
So yeah, subprofiles, reasons why not?
Aside from the work involved, I see no reason to not use the cascades
for what they seem to be made for.
As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the amount of work
necessary in maintaining
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 21:30 -0500, Kito wrote:
So yeah, subprofiles, reasons why not?
Aside from the work involved, I see no reason to not use the cascades
for what they seem to be made for.
As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 05:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
What I'm advocating is that the '05 profile (fex) tag in the defaults
for that profile release, desktop/server agnostic, *system*
defaults, eg toolchain, pam, nptl, etc. The subprofile the user
chooses (the desktop or server target)
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:59 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the amount of work
necessary in maintaining them. As it was back then, it required changes
to an extremely large number of profiles every time a change was made to
the default USE
If it was an extra ebuild, the profiles directory would need to exist
outside of /usr/portage, would it not? This to prevent it from being
blown up at next sync.
On 8/29/05, Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:59 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
As I understood it,
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:10 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:59 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the amount of work
necessary in maintaining them. As it was back then, it required changes
to an extremely large number of
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:56:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 05:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Basically, you've taken then 2005.1 profile and made it useless, since
the stages weren't built against it anyway.
Via that logic (don't change it lest it negates a
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 15:32 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:56:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 05:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Basically, you've taken then 2005.1 profile and made it useless, since
the stages weren't built against it
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:34 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Brian mentioned /etc/portage/profile and other fun portage tricks
to mess with the default profile. If you think the profile shouldn't be
changed then don't make it a mutable option. If you think that bugs
where people
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:43:35 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| There's nothing stopping you from creating a
| default-linux/x86/ferringb profile and doing whatever you wish in it,
| but editing default-linux/x86/2005.1 without speaking with releng
| would be considered taboo.
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
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
I don't recall having kde/gtk crap turned on by default when I first
showed up. Maybe I'm missing something; regardless, the defaults
(which should be minimal from my standpoint) are anything but.
I think you recall wrong, then. The default USE
On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 12:01 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
I don't recall having kde/gtk crap turned on by default when I first
showed up. Maybe I'm missing something; regardless, the defaults
(which should be minimal from my standpoint) are
On Thursday 25 August 2005 11:30, Kito wrote:
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
So yeah, subprofiles, reasons why not?
Aside from the work involved, I see no reason to not use the cascades
for what they seem to be made for.
Perhaps this is something that should wait for
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 11:07 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Thursday 25 August 2005 11:30, Kito wrote:
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
So yeah, subprofiles, reasons why not?
Aside from the work involved, I see no reason to not use the cascades
for what they seem to
39 matches
Mail list logo
