I like to say that I specialize in "loathsome technologies"; makefiles, maven, xml, SCM and CI systems, security, etc.
Though I have done everything from kernel work to web development in my career I often end up working on or helping with the build and release engineering aspects. I will also frequently end up being the person who works on the product cybersecurity and security model.
It certainly isn't the most "fun" work but it is necessary and usually gives you a deep understanding of how the system works. This is especially true for older products.
Part of the problem you are facing is the assumption that by hiring smart people they are hiring people who can do anything, the people are interchangeable, fungible. Even if the "smart" part is true the willingness to work outside of their preference areas is not universal. Developers are often entitled, spoiled and fussy. And why not, with the variety of work opportunities and amount of choice available they can generally afford to be picky.
So it is not enough to say that you are a jack-of-all-trades, but that you are happier being that way and are explicitly willing to take on tasks/roles that may otherwise be hard to fill. This doesn't mean that they can assume that they will only give you the shit-jobs; it is still negotiated. If they want to you work on, for example, QA tooling and you REALLY hate that make sure to negotiate that the work is not open ended and for a specific project or time window. You are solving a problem for them, usually temporarily, and they still need to come up with a long term answer. Don't get yourself stuck in a rut of one particular assignment, it is too easy to wind up being stuck in that role for the rest of your time in the organization.
You can use staff turnover, particularly management turnover to your advantage. Every staff change creates a new configuration. Use these occasions to adjust your role and volunteer for opportunities which interest you.
Though I have done everything from kernel work to web development in my career I often end up working on or helping with the build and release engineering aspects. I will also frequently end up being the person who works on the product cybersecurity and security model.
It certainly isn't the most "fun" work but it is necessary and usually gives you a deep understanding of how the system works. This is especially true for older products.
Part of the problem you are facing is the assumption that by hiring smart people they are hiring people who can do anything, the people are interchangeable, fungible. Even if the "smart" part is true the willingness to work outside of their preference areas is not universal. Developers are often entitled, spoiled and fussy. And why not, with the variety of work opportunities and amount of choice available they can generally afford to be picky.
So it is not enough to say that you are a jack-of-all-trades, but that you are happier being that way and are explicitly willing to take on tasks/roles that may otherwise be hard to fill. This doesn't mean that they can assume that they will only give you the shit-jobs; it is still negotiated. If they want to you work on, for example, QA tooling and you REALLY hate that make sure to negotiate that the work is not open ended and for a specific project or time window. You are solving a problem for them, usually temporarily, and they still need to come up with a long term answer. Don't get yourself stuck in a rut of one particular assignment, it is too easy to wind up being stuck in that role for the rest of your time in the organization.
You can use staff turnover, particularly management turnover to your advantage. Every staff change creates a new configuration. Use these occasions to adjust your role and volunteer for opportunities which interest you.