| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 22:46 +0200, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> begin quote |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:27:25 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > @GNOME="esd gnome gtk gtk2" |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> +evolution +cdr +dvd +mozilla +eds +pim +hal |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> And some more, if we want a good Gnome Desktop. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
See... that's where the problem lies. Where do we stop and where do we |
| 13 |
separate? Are the groups designed for laziness or designed to actually |
| 14 |
group like items? Perhaps the others can be grouped into a "@DESKTOP" |
| 15 |
or something, since they have nothing to do with Gnome (except hal, |
| 16 |
which is a local anyway) specifically, but are used by Gnome ebuilds. I |
| 17 |
mean, why not include dvdr and gstreamer and any of the other things |
| 18 |
that can enhance Gnome? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Personally, I think the groups should be well defined and quite |
| 21 |
specific. After all, we are simply trying to reduce the number of |
| 22 |
things a person needs to configure in make.conf, not make it so a person |
| 23 |
can USE="@GNOME" and expect it to give them everything they would want |
| 24 |
(or are we?) for a Gnome desktop. I think if we were going to do that, |
| 25 |
then our best bet would be to start using profiles to add a bunch of |
| 26 |
stuff. After |
| 27 |
all, /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.3/desktop/gnome sounds |
| 28 |
like a winner. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager |
| 33 |
Games - Developer |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives