On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 23:56 -0500, Aaron Walker wrote: > Isn't profiles.desc just a list of *default* profiles though? We want a list > of all valid profiles. So I think we should either extend profiles.desc to > contain all valid profiles, or add a new file.
Either way would be fine by me, but portage would have to be modified to allow for multiple profiles to be listed per arch in profiles.desc > Looking at profiles.desc did make me realize something though. If we do > decided to do a separate file, I think we should list the arch as well along > side the profile, kind of like profiles.desc does. This would allow us to get > a list of all valid profiles for a certain arch. > > In the case that I need this for (the eclectic profiles module), it'd be much > better IMO to be able to show valid profiles for a certain arch since a valid > profile for sparc is obviously not a valid profile for x86. > > Having a format of something like: > > alpha default-linux/alpha/2004.3 > alpha default-linux/alpha/2005.0 > ... > x86 default-linux/x86/2004.3 > ... > > would be ideal IMO. > > comments? WORKSFORME ;] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
