Re: [gentoo-dev] preference concerns over "gentoo-ization" of packages

[foser]

On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 16:26, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I think that there are many customizations that improve the user experience,
> but that also more or less break the standard. Here I don't mean defaults
> that make the package work out-of-the-box, but for example themes. While I
> like the gentoo theme for gdm, I think there should be a way to say you don't
> what that kind of customization.

What is the difference between the Gentoo theme and the default GDM
theme apart from an esthetic preference for one over the other ? Do you
really think that it justifies a USE flag ? The default theme is still
there, so you can easily change. 

Why do you have a problem with the theme while the default package
doesn't even enable the graphical greeter or is that a problem too or is
this just meant to pick a gnome change we once made ? Do you dislike the
splash we used as well, is it really that intrusive ? 

I think you're overdoing this trying to make a point. 

> I think such a flag should be used in all cases where a customization is
> applied and the following statements apply:
> - The package's behaviour, looks or configuration are different from the
>   default behaviour and this behaviour was not just enabled by the patch (but
>   latent in the package)
> - The package does not conform anymore to its documentation. (In this case the
>   changes MUST be documented) Except in places like init scripts that are not
>   going to work for anything else then redhat.

A package shouldn't be altered so much that it's behaviour changes, that
would be a very bad thing. Distro specific things like you mention
should be solved of course. Uniformity across distros should be a goal,
to reach that i think it's best to follow the upstream package (vanilla)
as close as possible.
 
> - Aditional features (not bugfixes) are included by patches for use in some
>   ebuilds (like dropshadows for kde). Even if those features are invisible, as
>   they break compatibility and possibly cause instability.

In my opinion patches that will not in the foreseeable future make it
into the upstream CVS tree shouldn't be in the Gentoo tree either,
behind a USE flag or not. I cannot comment on kde dropshadow, but a
similar patch for gnome is hackish, plain ugly and unmaintainable by us,
resulting in possible future regressions. But you note yourself that
those sort of patches are of questionable nature, i don't know why you
would want it in the official ebuilds. People who so desperately want it
can easily modify the ebuild themselves to their needs, that's the power
that Gentoo offers. We don't have to hold users by the hand, you learn
to walk by trying and falling down on occasion.

> - there are probably other cases

Now we have different cases that need one flag, but some people might
argue that some special cases need another flag and next thing you know
we have a dozen flags for customizations that are non-intrusive, for
providing mandrake like total rewritten fool-proof config files and what
not.

We need no flag, it is simple : if the change can't be justified for all
users, it shouldn't go in.

And i don't think a little non-intrusive branding needs a flag and i
call it justified as a means of showing one is using the Gentoo distro,
but if you disagree we could maybe drop the GDM theme for the sake of
it. On the other hand you are the first to have a problem with it, most
people really liked it.

- foser


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list