On Monday 26 of October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote: > IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with.
> I've always considered Gentoo to be an "opt-in" distro where after a > successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of > installing new packages. > Finding out what USE flags mean and do is part of the Gentoo experience. > If we were doing spin-off distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do, then > subprofiles would be fine, but we're not. > So with my X hat on, I won't be adding any "X" subprofile. > And with my (former?) Gnome hat on, I vote against any "gnome" subprofile. I most cases I agree with you. To be more specific - desktop profile should be annihilated because it's a joke. It's impractical and bloated. Splitting it to "kde" and "gnome" is just nicer way of annihilating it. However, considering amount of confused users on IRC and forums, especially after KDE4 stabilization and Qt4 default USE flags change, and considering no automatic USE flags management provided by portage (for example via -- interactive mode) - there's no way to make it easier to use. Making something "easier to use" does not necessarily need to mean "less flexible". It we're to provide mostly learning experience and not practical solutions, why not rename Gentoo to Eduentoo :) And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals (sic! like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to get to know what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when someone forgot (or decided not to) describe it in metadata.xml even when semantics is different? Maybe I sound too harsh here, but that's because I'm not ideologist - I'm practical man. -- regards MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
