1 |
On 05/06/2012 03:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
> El dom, 06-05-2012 a las 07:33 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
3 |
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny<mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap... |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> Tend to agree. I don't think we want to create a new profile every |
9 |
>> time we want to change one of the flags. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Some other questionable ones: |
12 |
>> emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite |
13 |
>> firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it |
14 |
>> xulrunner - not even used now |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at |
17 |
>> single flags. What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly |
18 |
>> match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of |
19 |
>> them. |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that |
22 |
>> might be a good fit for such a configuration. I agree that -ldap |
23 |
>> isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one. If you |
24 |
>> really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop |
25 |
>> at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Maybe "desktop" should be more lightweight oriented and for people (like |
28 |
> me) wanting more, use gnome/kde instead (or create xfce/lxde... if they |
29 |
> need other flags...) |
30 |
|
31 |
There will be no xfce/ sub profile as we don't need one (ever). |
32 |
Xfce is working fine on default (standard) desktop components from |
33 |
freedesktop.org and the GTK+ toolkit. |
34 |
We can still do our changes directly in the desktop profile, such as, |
35 |
enabling USE flags like "thunar" in make.defaults (or if needed, |
36 |
package.use) since the flags will only concern packages within xfce-* |
37 |
categories and/or Xfce specific packages in other categories. |
38 |
|
39 |
When this was discussed earlier, the LXDE and ROX maintainers declared |
40 |
same, and it seems to still be valid from what I can see. |
41 |
Only GNOME and KDE maintainers wanted one, because they have packages in |
42 |
random categories which can be used in a generic way, or oriented |
43 |
towards their desktops. |
44 |
|
45 |
As in, desktop is (or should be) already the lightweight version. |
46 |
The story behind USE flags like ldap and cups are spawning from |
47 |
something else, and I'm all for removing them both. |
48 |
|
49 |
>> |
50 |
>> The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets - |
51 |
>> there will always be a "use" for 1 more. That's why we all run Gentoo |
52 |
>> - we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package |
53 |
>> maintainers. |
54 |
>> |
55 |
>> Rich |
56 |
>> |
57 |
>> |
58 |
> |
59 |
> |