Re: build profile syntax ideas
+++ Guillem Jover [2013-10-21 07:31 +0200]:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 12:31:17 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > To get this issue moving, I have attached a patch which implements the <>
> > version of the proposal. The patch is based upon one by wookey and pehjota [1]
> > and adds testcases, namespace support and the ability to activate more than one
> > profile at once.
>
> > Let me repeat again that this issue has been open for years and if an
> > implementation is everything that is needed then here you go. Please review and
> > comment on my patch. I will implement any fixes necessary so that this issue
> > can go forward.
>
> Sorry, I lost track of this, was meaning to get into this but got pulled
> into something else. I've added it now to my TODO list for stuff do deal
> with before 1.17.2 (a release I don't really want to drag much more
> than a week or two at most).
OK, that's great to hear.
> Anyway, I've to say that I've found the overall tone in the thread in
> debian-devel pretty unpleasant.
Sorry if we sounded a bit grumpy. As you know it's frustrating when things
progress very slowly, and we have tried to be factual and reasonably polite.
I was hoping you'd be at debconf to talk about some of this in person, which
always works a whole load better. Let's not go over that further as I don't
think it helps - I'm glad it's back on your list.
I was a away for the weekend so have just read the responses on -devel and clarified
that 1 stage is not sufficient (although 2 may be), and that I think the more
flexible mechanism you proposed does have benefit. We may need to make refinements
later as the implications of allowing multiple combinations of profiles become
clear, and we'll certainly need some policy around it, but I'm persuaded that
having a general profile mechanism is better than a simple 'stage1 bootstrap'
mechanism even if in practice it's only ever used for the simple case.
> Also having every second mail add a slightly
> different proposal means one has to reset their mental model every time
> and reconsider any new global implications and similar, which might
> not help either.
Agreed, although the changes have always been in response to feedback or
experience.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: