1 |
On Friday 12 March 2010 10:36:57 Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: |
3 |
> > On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: |
5 |
> > >> Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > I suggest reading my comments... |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this |
10 |
> > thread. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The subthread got renamed to more fit its purpose. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> > If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this |
15 |
> > one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal, |
16 |
> > but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already |
17 |
> > working on that? |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the |
20 |
> > current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I argued that it's a bad idea to add yet more profiles, when we could |
23 |
> avoid that (while even improving things additionally). |
24 |
> |
25 |
> But I guess I'll have to bring some direct points why I think |
26 |
> implementing the alternative as I described ASAP is better than ever |
27 |
> doing this gnome/kde subprofile thing: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 |
30 |
> profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. (Of course the |
31 |
> subprofiles could also be added together with a new release, as proposed |
32 |
> for the alternative idea) |
33 |
> * Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time, |
34 |
> possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a |
35 |
> perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse |
36 |
> triggering, etc) |
37 |
> * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile |
38 |
> (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite |
39 |
> suboptimal for GNOME) |
40 |
> * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the |
41 |
> carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the |
42 |
> alternative better proposal |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
First of all, I'll delay the commit since I need to write documentation |
46 |
patches, and I won't be able, as I'll leave soon for a conference and will be |
47 |
back on Monday. Maybe I'll find time to prepare something there, but I can't |
48 |
promise. |
49 |
|
50 |
Now, to reply to Mart: |
51 |
|
52 |
I found your proposal about mixing profiles awesome, and I am willing to work |
53 |
on this. In fact, I'm going to raise the issue on KDE's meeting this Thursday |
54 |
at 20:00 UTC. Any freedesktop team members will be welcome there. But I'm not |
55 |
going to step up from the current workaround I worked on, as things are not |
56 |
that tragic. I will document and announce everything, and I will be watching |
57 |
forums and IRC for some days to provide support. The only real problem in my |
58 |
opinion would be this, people get confused about useflags and unexpected -- |
59 |
newuse results. (btw I already announced it once in my blog, I will do it |
60 |
again, and we'll also provide a news item, so I doubt this is even a real |
61 |
problem as well). To sum up: |
62 |
1) Not oblious to me? / Not bad from my point of view? |
63 |
2) I doubt users will be conflicted, I'll benchmark repoman and hit back |
64 |
3) agreed, but i don't see a problem there |
65 |
4) I'll be the motivator for this :) |
66 |
-- |
67 |
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) |
68 |
Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams |
69 |
blog.tampakrap.gr |