| 1 |
On 12 March 2010 09:36, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 |
| 3 |
> profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
While I agree with you in principle, this has not been Gentoo practice. |
| 6 |
The profiles have already been modified, multiple times, since the |
| 7 |
release. So either we need to revert those changes and start a new |
| 8 |
profile set (for an upcoming release or whatever), or we need to |
| 9 |
solve problems in the current profiles. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I would support a new policy of not changing the release profiles |
| 12 |
once they have been officially released, and start working on a new |
| 13 |
"current" set of profiles immediately after release (or as soon as |
| 14 |
the need for change comes up). So we would in effect have stable |
| 15 |
and testing profiles, mirroring our ebuild policy. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> * Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time, |
| 18 |
> possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a |
| 19 |
> perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse |
| 20 |
> triggering, etc) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
There are good reasons for these new subprofiles, and I'm sure |
| 23 |
our tools can handle them. Documentation and a news item about |
| 24 |
the changes should help prevent confusion among users. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile |
| 27 |
> (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite |
| 28 |
> suboptimal for GNOME) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Either solution is suboptimal, so it is very much about weighing pros |
| 31 |
and cons. In my opinion the split desktop profiles are an improvement |
| 32 |
over the current situation. And it will be even better when your plan for |
| 33 |
eselect profile improvements gets implemented. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the |
| 36 |
> carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the |
| 37 |
> alternative better proposal |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I think it's rather the other way around: having split gnome and kde |
| 40 |
subprofiles makes it all the more apparent that the current handling |
| 41 |
of profiles is suboptimal. It will be a bigger motivation for change. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I'm afraid that sweeping the problem of a suboptimal unified desktop |
| 44 |
profile under the carpet again by not implementing the split now will |
| 45 |
reduce motivation again for people to work on your proposal. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Even so, if we choose not to implement the split now, there are |
| 48 |
problems that need addressing in the current situation. The Qt team |
| 49 |
finds the mysql dependency that was added to the desktop profile |
| 50 |
three months ago (see bug #291996) unacceptable. How would you |
| 51 |
propose to solve this without splitting the desktop profile? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Cheers, |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Ben de Groot |
| 56 |
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) |
| 57 |
______________________________________________________ |
Archives