| 1 |
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Tend to agree. I don't think we want to create a new profile every |
| 7 |
time we want to change one of the flags. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Some other questionable ones: |
| 10 |
emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite |
| 11 |
firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it |
| 12 |
xulrunner - not even used now |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at |
| 15 |
single flags. What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly |
| 16 |
match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of |
| 17 |
them. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that |
| 20 |
might be a good fit for such a configuration. I agree that -ldap |
| 21 |
isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one. If you |
| 22 |
really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop |
| 23 |
at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets - |
| 26 |
there will always be a "use" for 1 more. That's why we all run Gentoo |
| 27 |
- we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package |
| 28 |
maintainers. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives