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
chun
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 ne
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 mi
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 th
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 t
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
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
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 seve
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 n
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 und
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
> >
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 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 mo
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 th
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
> an
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.
>>
>>
>>
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 bet
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 g
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 exists
-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
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.
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 serv
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
p
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 23:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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/x86/2
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:43:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
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 ti
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
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 th
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:43:35PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
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 s
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.
Sho
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 f
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 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 l
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 releas
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 numb
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 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
29.8.2005, 17:59:07, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I honestly don't think it would be a good idea to forget the lessons of the
> past and start bloating the profiles with tons of "desktop" and "server"
> profiles, among anything else people would want. After all, as soon as we did
> a "desktop" profi
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
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 amoun
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 maintainin
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 st
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 f
Note, sending to dev only, not cc'ing core; the inital -core post was
to make sure those who aren't watching dev ml see the email (annoying,
but it's an old habit I've yet to kick despite needing to).
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:48:26AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> >I do
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 flags have been set so
tha
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 the
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 Aug 24, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
Hola all.
[...]
So, fex, the following flags are rather desktop specific-
alsa
arts
avi
bitmap-fonts
cups
eds
emboss (why the hell is "European Molecular Biology Open Software
Suite"
a profile default? Seems extremely specialized)
en
46 matches
Mail list logo
