| 1 |
El dom, 06-05-2012 a las 07:33 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Tend to agree. I don't think we want to create a new profile every |
| 8 |
> time we want to change one of the flags. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Some other questionable ones: |
| 11 |
> emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite |
| 12 |
> firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it |
| 13 |
> xulrunner - not even used now |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at |
| 16 |
> single flags. What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly |
| 17 |
> match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of |
| 18 |
> them. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that |
| 21 |
> might be a good fit for such a configuration. I agree that -ldap |
| 22 |
> isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one. If you |
| 23 |
> really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop |
| 24 |
> at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Maybe "desktop" should be more lightweight oriented and for people (like |
| 27 |
me) wanting more, use gnome/kde instead (or create xfce/lxde... if they |
| 28 |
need other flags...) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets - |
| 31 |
> there will always be a "use" for 1 more. That's why we all run Gentoo |
| 32 |
> - we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package |
| 33 |
> maintainers. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Rich |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
Archives