| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 21:30 -0500, Kito wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>>So yeah, subprofiles, reasons why not? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>Aside from the work involved, I see no reason to not use the cascades |
| 10 |
>>for what they seem to be made for. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>As I understood it, they were implemented to reduce the amount of work |
| 15 |
>necessary in maintaining them. As it was back then, it required changes |
| 16 |
>to an extremely large number of profiles every time a change was made to |
| 17 |
>the default USE flags. I honestly don't think it would be a good idea |
| 18 |
>to forget the lessons of the past and start bloating the profiles with |
| 19 |
>tons of "desktop" and "server" profiles, among anything else people |
| 20 |
>would want. After all, as soon as we did a "desktop" profile, then we |
| 21 |
>would have requests for "gnome" and "kde" sub-profiles. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>As I stated earlier, it's easier to not provide *any* than to try to |
| 24 |
>provide all of the ones that will inevitably be requested as soon as we |
| 25 |
>start adding them. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
In general, it sounds like a good idea, but as far as i can see, it |
| 30 |
would be |
| 31 |
a for-the-user and by-the-user idea, but what about for the devs, it |
| 32 |
doesn't look |
| 33 |
like something easy to mantain. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Nevertheless, what if we can provide instead tools/docs to help users |
| 36 |
with the task?, |
| 37 |
so anyone willing to do it, could easily create his/her own sub-profiles |
| 38 |
for kde/gnome/whatever ... |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Just an idea :-] |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives