1 |
On Monday 26 of October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with. |
4 |
|
5 |
> I've always considered Gentoo to be an "opt-in" distro where after a |
6 |
> successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of |
7 |
> installing new packages. |
8 |
|
9 |
> Finding out what USE flags mean and do is part of the Gentoo experience. |
10 |
> If we were doing spin-off distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do, then |
11 |
> subprofiles would be fine, but we're not. |
12 |
|
13 |
> So with my X hat on, I won't be adding any "X" subprofile. |
14 |
|
15 |
> And with my (former?) Gnome hat on, I vote against any "gnome" subprofile. |
16 |
|
17 |
I most cases I agree with you. To be more specific - desktop profile should be |
18 |
annihilated because it's a joke. It's impractical and bloated. |
19 |
Splitting it to "kde" and "gnome" is just nicer way of annihilating it. |
20 |
However, considering amount of confused users on IRC and forums, especially |
21 |
after KDE4 stabilization and Qt4 default USE flags change, and considering no |
22 |
automatic USE flags management provided by portage (for example via -- |
23 |
interactive mode) - there's no way to make it easier to use. |
24 |
|
25 |
Making something "easier to use" does not necessarily need to mean "less |
26 |
flexible". It we're to provide mostly learning experience and not practical |
27 |
solutions, why not rename Gentoo to Eduentoo :) |
28 |
|
29 |
And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals (sic! |
30 |
like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to get to know |
31 |
what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when someone forgot (or |
32 |
decided not to) describe it in metadata.xml even when semantics is different? |
33 |
Maybe I sound too harsh here, but that's because I'm not ideologist - I'm |
34 |
practical man. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
regards |
38 |
MM |