On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:12:19 +0100 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:23:35 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I've written a short proposal that aims to provide basic > > infrastructure for defining mix-in profiles in Gentoo. I've tried to > > keep it simple, and backwards compatible. The main goal is to be able > > to start defining some mix-ins without having to reinvent the whole > > profile tree. > > > > Most important points: > > > > 1. Mix-ins are applied on top of base profile (which works the same as > > before), > > > > 2. Mix-ins are supported via 'eselect profile' > > replacing /etc/portage/make.profile symlink with a directory, without > > need for Portage patching (this is how Funtoo does it), > > > > 3. Most important mix-ins are used to construct base profiles which > > provides both backwards compatibility and proper targets for repoman > > (to avoid having to check all possible mix-in combinations). > > > > Complete text: > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Mix-ins > > > Dont we need to restrict what is allowed in mixins profiles ? > It doesn't have to be in the glep, but I think it'd be good to have. At some point, probably yes. I wanted to start with a GLEP to have technical basics, then see how it all works out. I don't consider myself capable of predicting it all right now. > For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can end > up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch. > Arguably, desktop profiles relying on having an useflag forced on a > given package are already semi-broken: they'd be better with the > useflag default enabled and proper usedeps, so the mask/force game > doesnt seem really useful for mixins. That's why if you do such a thing, you would have to declare a regular profile using this mix-in for repoman to test. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpfaQgf5gjX8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
