On Friday 12 March 2010 10:36:57 Mart Raudsepp wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > > On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > > >> Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! > > > > > > I suggest reading my comments... > > > > Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this > > thread. > > The subthread got renamed to more fit its purpose. > > > If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this > > one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal, > > but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already > > working on that? > > > > In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the > > current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo. > > I argued that it's a bad idea to add yet more profiles, when we could > avoid that (while even improving things additionally). > > But I guess I'll have to bring some direct points why I think > implementing the alternative as I described ASAP is better than ever > doing this gnome/kde subprofile thing: > > * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 > profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. (Of course the > subprofiles could also be added together with a new release, as proposed > for the alternative idea) > * Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time, > possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a > perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse > triggering, etc) > * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile > (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite > suboptimal for GNOME) > * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the > carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the > alternative better proposal
First of all, I'll delay the commit since I need to write documentation patches, and I won't be able, as I'll leave soon for a conference and will be back on Monday. Maybe I'll find time to prepare something there, but I can't promise. Now, to reply to Mart: I found your proposal about mixing profiles awesome, and I am willing to work on this. In fact, I'm going to raise the issue on KDE's meeting this Thursday at 20:00 UTC. Any freedesktop team members will be welcome there. But I'm not going to step up from the current workaround I worked on, as things are not that tragic. I will document and announce everything, and I will be watching forums and IRC for some days to provide support. The only real problem in my opinion would be this, people get confused about useflags and unexpected -- newuse results. (btw I already announced it once in my blog, I will do it again, and we'll also provide a news item, so I doubt this is even a real problem as well). To sum up: 1) Not oblious to me? / Not bad from my point of view? 2) I doubt users will be conflicted, I'll benchmark repoman and hit back 3) agreed, but i don't see a problem there 4) I'll be the motivator for this :) -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams blog.tampakrap.gr
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
