On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:40:00PM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: > mån 2010-03-08 klockan 19:13 +0200 skrev Mart Raudsepp: > > > Instead I think we should be improving "eselect profile" to support > > multiple inheriting /etc/make.profile files in a user friendly fashion, > > and in the end removing 249 subprofiles, instead of adding 28+. > > > > > I vote for this one. A profile being a only contains what is interesting > for that profile, and you can "stash together" some profiles into your > own cocktail. > Yeah, I know it sounds horrible, but it would still be better then to > only be able to focus on one small set. > > For example if I am using the GNOME DE, and have someone other also > using my computer, but who really wants to use KDE. Should I have to > find out what from the KDE profile to enable in my env to make my > GNOME-profile also tingle for KDE? > > I think having a set of "base profiles" for toolchains and alike (i.e. > default, hardened) would be good. Then be able to add for example > desktop/gnome or server and/or selinux profiles on top would be > interesting. This also for maintainers, as for example PeBenito can > focus on the selinux part of the profiles, and do not have to keep up to > date with which hardened-compilers are currently masked/unmasked.
While I agree in principle within mixins, no one here is discussing the QA affect of it- right now we can do visibility scans of combinations of gnome + amd64 + 2010 because they're defined. If there is a shift to having users do the combinations themselves (rather then combining w/in tree), there won't be visibility scans for it- end result, more broken deps should be able to slide by, more horked cycles, etc. A solution there would be useful- one that preferably doesn't involve scanning every possible permutation of mixable profiles (you would *not* like the speed affect that would have on repoman). ~harring
pgp96WQbGx4Qb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
