Mailing List Archive

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:11 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid
> profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone
> stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or
> not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux,
> as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles
> are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles
> are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd.

Standard Hardened Glibc:
- amd64 (valid)
- ppc (valid)
- ppc64 (valid)
- x86 (valid)
- x86/2.6 (valid)

Embedded/uClibc:
- arm (valid)
- arm/2.4 (valid)
- arm/armeb (valid)
- arm/armeb/2.4 (valid)

- mips (valid)
- mips/hardened (valid)
- mips/mipsel (valid)
- mips/mipsel/hardened (valid)

- ppc (valid)
- ppc/hardened (valid)

- x86 (valid)
- x86/2.4 (valid)
- x86/hardened (valid)
- x86/hardened/2.4 (valid)
- x86/linux24 (deprecated)
- x86/linux26 (deprecated)

> Thanks,
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
> Games - Developer
> Gentoo Linux


--
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid
> profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone
> stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or
> not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux,
> as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles
> are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles
> are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd.
>

vserver/*

--
He who asks a question is a fool for a minute,
He who doesn't ask is a fool for a lifetime.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> - x86/linux24 (deprecated)
> - x86/linux26 (deprecated)

What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking
against them?

I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think?

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

On Monday 01 August 2005 10:15 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > - x86/linux24 (deprecated)
> > - x86/linux26 (deprecated)
>
> What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking
> against them?
>
> I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think?

speaking of which, i had an idea to clean up all that crap, i just forgot to
post it a while back ...

gentoo-x86/profiles/ $ tree obsolete
obsolete
|-- README
|-- alpha
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- amd64
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- hppa
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- ia64
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- mips
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- ppc
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- ppc64
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
|-- sparc
| |-- deprecated
| `-- make.defaults
`-- x86
|-- deprecated
`-- make.defaults

9 directories, 19 files

then we can punt all the flat profiles and if a user needs an upgrade path,
they can symlink to these in the meantime
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:21 +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid
> > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone
> > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or
> > not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux,
> > as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles
> > are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles
> > are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd.
> >
>
> vserver/*

Not true.

vserver itself is not a valid profile. This is exactly why I am asking
for this information. From what I can tell, only vserver/x86 is valid.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

On Monday 01 August 2005 16:46, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:21 +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > ka0ttic reminded me about the idea of adding all of the valid
> > > profiles to profiles.desc now that portage 2.0.51.22 has gone
> > > stable. Well, I need you guys to give me a list of what is valid or
> > > not. I have a pretty good idea of what is valid under default-linux,
> > > as far as the default profiles go, but need to know which profiles
> > > are development profiles. I especially need to know which profiles
> > > are valid for projects like embedded, hardened, and *bsd.
> >
> > vserver/*
>
> Not true.
>
> vserver itself is not a valid profile. This is exactly why I am asking
> for this information. From what I can tell, only vserver/x86 is valid.

well, you're right... just thought it's enough to state that everything in
vserver/ is valid ;)

--
He who asks a question is a fool for a minute,
He who doesn't ask is a fool for a lifetime.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> I especially need to know which profiles are valid for projects
> like embedded, hardened, and *bsd.

Here is the state of macos profiles:

Valid:

default-darwin/
- macos/10.3
- macos/10.4
- macos/progressive

Deprecated:

default-macos/*
default-macos-10.3/
default-macos-10.4/

>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
> Games - Developer
> Gentoo Linux
>
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Monday 01 August 2005 10:22 am, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2005 10:15 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 10:59 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > - x86/linux24 (deprecated)
> > > - x86/linux26 (deprecated)
> >
> > What should we do with deprecated profiles? Should we still be checking
> > against them?
> >
> > I would think we would, but what do the rest of you think?
>
> speaking of which, i had an idea to clean up all that crap, i just forgot
> to post it a while back ...
>
> gentoo-x86/profiles/ $ tree obsolete
> obsolete
> <snip>
> then we can punt all the flat profiles and if a user needs an upgrade path,
> they can symlink to these in the meantime

well, no one has said anything about this so i'll go ahead and punt all
remaining flat profiles and add this obsolete tree once 2005.1 is released

in other words, these people will be served:
default-alpha-1.4
default-alpha-2004.0
default-macos-10.3
default-macos-10.4
default-ppc
default-ppc-1.0
default-ppc-1.4
default-ppc-2004.0
default-ppc-2004.1
default-ppc-2004.2
default-ppc-2004.3
default-ppc64-2004.2
default-ppc64-2004.3
default-sparc-1.4
default-sparc-2004.0
default-sparc64-1.4
default-sparc64-2004.0
default-x86-2004.2
default-x86-obsd-2004
gcc33-sparc64-1.4
hardened-x86-2004.0
-mike
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list