On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go!
> > I suggest reading my comments...
> Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this
The subthread got renamed to more fit its purpose.
> If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this
> one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal,
> but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already
> working on that?
> In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the
> current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo.
I argued that it's a bad idea to add yet more profiles, when we could
avoid that (while even improving things additionally).
But I guess I'll have to bring some direct points why I think
implementing the alternative as I described ASAP is better than ever
doing this gnome/kde subprofile thing:
* The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0
profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. (Of course the
subprofiles could also be added together with a new release, as proposed
for the alternative idea)
* Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time,
possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a
perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse
* Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile
(though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite
suboptimal for GNOME)
* Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the
carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the
alternative better proposal