1 |
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:44:38 -0500 |
2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> The question to ask is who do you want to create more work for? |
5 |
> People maintaining packages, or people maintaining profiles. |
6 |
|
7 |
I would probably say "yes" to both of those, because the main objective here |
8 |
is to create less work for the end user, and that burden has to be paid by somebody. |
9 |
|
10 |
I don't think its anything that is the responsibility of either one of those |
11 |
targets in isolation. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Essentially your saying IUSE defaults do not belong in a package, but in a |
14 |
> profile. The problem is that is a hard rule to follow. What if the default |
15 |
> benefits all, like in a base profile. Then it might make sense to add directly |
16 |
> to ebuild than profile. But that would go against any rule/policy saying only |
17 |
> add IUSE defaults to profiles. At the same time, if more than one profile needs |
18 |
> that enabled by default, it is creating more work there. |
19 |
|
20 |
That's rather the problem as I see it, people are trying to see it as an "either" |
21 |
situation when its rather both. |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> While the latter is cleaner, and therefore would seem preferred. It is not |
25 |
> that much effort to negate a flag in a profile. That is likely time better |
26 |
> spent. Than to have package maintainers messing with profile defaults, touching |
27 |
> more than one profile potentially, etc. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Its probably best to have a team, familiar with profiles managing profiles. |
30 |
> Rather than every developer working with IUSE and packages. While they may be |
31 |
> bloated, or uglier. There isn't really a way around, short of something that |
32 |
> bypasses default flags, allowing others to be set instead. |
33 |
|
34 |
As I see it, people who manage "profiles" are essentially managing a distinct |
35 |
"vision", a template of sorts of a stereotype of a specific type of end user, |
36 |
concerning themselves with espousing the same interest over a wide variety of |
37 |
packages. |
38 |
|
39 |
Whereas the people who manage packages are more concerned with a more |
40 |
"upstream centered" vision of things, ( where the maintainers themselves |
41 |
are a kind of upstream ). |
42 |
|
43 |
So naturally it will require some sort of negotiation, where the people |
44 |
who define profiles write guidelines for how packages should fit into |
45 |
those profiles, and the people who write packages should work out how |
46 |
to dovetail the upstream vision of things into those specific |
47 |
guidelines. |
48 |
|
49 |
For instance, perhaps one specific profile might be the "I Just want a |
50 |
kde/qt desktop of some kind, I don't care how", and thats the point of |
51 |
that profile, to deliver that specific experience. |
52 |
|
53 |
But the individual packages will still have to decide how to best |
54 |
satisfy that profile, which in some cases might end up preferring qt4 |
55 |
instead of qt5 for instance (perhaps out of necessity) |
56 |
|
57 |
Maintainers of individual packages have the most knowledge about how to |
58 |
best deliver that specific package, but maintainers of profiles have |
59 |
the best understanding of what people want to see. |