[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] mask and force various profile specific USE
From:       Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2 () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2007-02-26 2:08:31
Message-ID: 1172455711.8807.6.camel () inertia ! twi-31o2 ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 16:42 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:22:34 -0800 Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > | In order to do this, selected profile specific flags should be
> > | masked in the base profile and unmasked/forced in the specific
> > | profiles which they apply to.  The unmasking is necessary because
> > | use.mask currently overrides use.force.  USE flags suggested as
> > | candidates for masking/forcing include all USE_EXPAND flags derived
> > | from the USERLAND, KERNEL, and ELIBC variables.
> > 
> > ...and ARCH, since it seems not all profiles mask all archs...
> > 
> 
> Given the current single-inheritance profile structure and the way
> that many leaf profiles define an ARCH that is different from their
> parent profile, it will require ARCH masking/forcing in
> approximately 80 different individual profiles.  I'm not sure if
> it's really worth it.   When we start using multiple-inheritance, we
> can define ARCH specific profiles that those 80 different individual
> profiles can inherit their ARCH masking/forcing from.

We're (Release Engineering) trying to "use" them now.  Since I took the
2007.0 snapshot, I have been working on replacing all of the 2007.0
profiles into a multi-parent version of said profiles.  This includes
all of the required parents, such as base/default-linux/etc.  While we
aren't planning on requiring using them for this release, I'm trying to
get them done and will be building some experimental stages based on
them.  Depending on how easy it ends up being, we might just use them
for the release itself.  They should be quite simple, at least for
"default-linux" and its children.  I'm putting in everything that is
currently in the tree into my multi-parent profile group.  Since I don't
have to make any changes to the current profiles, it can live
side-by-side in the tree with no adverse consequences, other than people
having make certain commits in two places until we phase out the old
profiles.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]