| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1741
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:39 am Post subject: profile combinations |
 |
|
I am sure this has been asked before, but I am wondering why the profile selection is so limited. I would like to (for example) have a kde no-multilib profile, but it seems that I have to select either one or the other. In fact, the whole profile setup seems a bit clunky. It seems it would be better to select the architecture, and add features on top of that.
Probably quite difficult to change, but maybe someone could provide some insight into why it is the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Doctor
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2678
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
A profile is just meant to give you some sane use flags to start off with. You can customize to your heart's content with the USE="" variable. If you want a no multilib kde you would just need to select the no-multilib profile and add USE="kde plasma" and whatever else you feel like. However, this may or may not be supported by $upstream.
One of the few features that a profile provides is to mask certain use flags that are not supported upstream. For example, *kitless KDE used to work just fine but you couldn't get it on a kde profile unless you did some minor package.* editing.
Mixing profiles is not trivial in the slightest. For example, if you want to mix gnome and kde both contain mutually exclusive use flags. How do you choose between them? Then the masked use flags, etc. etc. After you have sorted out that mess, is the resulting configuration supported by the upstream developers. Or worse it may not work at all.
The best approach for a power user is to select one of the basic profiles like 17.0, 17.0/hardened, 17.0/no-multilib, or no-multilib/hardened and then add the appropriate use flags to make.conf to achieve the desired result.
If you want to know what one profile gives that another does not select it and run emerge --info and compare use flags. Just remember to switch back to your original or desired profile when you are done.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 30917
Location: here
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can also combine profile yourself
[Moderator edit: replaced tinyurl with ultimate destination. Shortened URLs are not needed here, and may not live as long as the underlying advice. Original shortened URL: https://tinyurl.com/y7w5fdta. -Hu]
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wrote: | | Mixing profiles is not trivial in the slightest. For example, if you want to mix gnome and kde both contain mutually exclusive use flags. How do you choose between them? Then the masked use flags, etc. etc. After you have sorted out that mess, is the resulting configuration supported by the upstream developers. Or worse it may not work at all. |
I can understand why some things (such as gnome and kde can conflict. But I can't see any reasons why all of the basics (desktop, developer, selinux, and systemd) can't exist in both multilib and no-multilib versions. There shouldn't be any conflict there.
Thanks. I might give that a shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Doctor
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2678
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| curmudgeon wrote: | | I can understand why some things (such as gnome and kde can conflict. But I can't see any reasons why all of the basics (desktop, developer, selinux, and systemd) can't exist in both multilib and no-multilib versions. There shouldn't be any conflict there. |
Actually, I would not be a bit surprised to find it unsupported. Multilib is still expected. I know of quite a few 64 bit programs with 32 bit launchers. Kerbal Space Program for one.
Now, I completely agree that this is poor practice but it still exists and may explain why some devs might believe that supporting pure 64 bit would be unnecessary.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wrote: | Actually, I would not be a bit surprised to find it unsupported. Multilib is still expected. I know of quite a few 64 bit programs with 32 bit launchers. Kerbal Space Program for one.
Now, I completely agree that this is poor practice but it still exists and may explain why some devs might believe that supporting pure 64 bit would be unnecessary. |
I am frequently quite annoyed with the number of binary programs (games) still delivered only in 32-bit - does anybody still actually use a 32-bit machine (other than phones more than a couple of years old)?
I absolutely refuse to install 32-bit capabilities on a 64-bit system because of the attack vectors it opens up (the number of exploits in this area is simply astounding). Worst of all are developers (looking at you, Mozilla) who for so many years lectured everyone that "you don't need a 64-bit browser" - yes I do, since none of my machines can run the 32-bit version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21635
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have a special-purpose x86 machine in service. It's old enough that it cannot run 64-bit code at all. It runs Gentoo and does not play games, so binary-only x86-only programs are not a problem for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hu wrote: | | I have a special-purpose x86 machine in service. It's old enough that it cannot run 64-bit code at all. It runs Gentoo and does not play games, so binary-only x86-only programs are not a problem for it. |
Okay, but then if games were ONLY distributed as 64-bit, then that wouldn't be a problem for you, because you don't put them on the special-purpose machine anyway. I believe that 64-bit binaries should be the norm (a lot of distributions have completely dropped support for 32-bit only systems), and if some company or developer wants to release a 32-bit program, they can do that in addition to (not instead of) the 64-bit binary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Installing Gentoo
