Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stupid USE defaults that need cleaning
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:12:45
Message-Id: 43B0CCAC.40006@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stupid USE defaults that need cleaning by Brian Harring
1 Brian Harring wrote:
2
3 >On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
4 >
5 >
6 >>It occurs to me that this could be (to an extent) accomplished by having
7 >>a few more "specialized" subprofiles for x86: base, desktop, gnome, and kde.
8 >>
9 >>base - as the name implies, a _basic_ starting point... very similar to
10 >>server profiles, etc. veeery minimal.
11 >>desktop - almost identical to the current USE flags -- what Joe Q. User
12 >>"should" have to be safe, and have programs function as expected.
13 >>gnome / kde - slight specializations of the above to tailor the use
14 >>flags for one desktop environ or the other..
15 >>
16 >>Problems?
17 >>1) heavier usage and depth of the profile, making where things come in
18 >>more and more obscure.
19 >>2) could lead to proliferation of environment tailored "desktop"
20 >>derivatives. (xfce, fluxbox, the list could go on) This may not be a
21 >>problem as many distros have successfully divided between KDE and Gnome,
22 >>and the base / desktop profiles would allow users ways to customize, as
23 >>always.
24 >>3) there is _no_ functionality added by any of this, only
25 >>"user-friendliness" after a fashion, and as such, perhaps it should all
26 >>be chucked in favor of having users competently declare their own global
27 >>USE flags during the install, however I doubt that'll get very far. *shrug*
28 >>
29 >>
30 >
31 >4) need for the ability to inherit multiple parent profiles.
32 >
33 >Otherwise, x86 desktop profile is not guranteed in anyway to reflect
34 >sparc desktop profile (yes, somewhat the case now).
35 >
36 >A gnome desktop profile would make sense imo, but from a work
37 >standpoint is totally dependant on ability to inherit multiple
38 >parents.
39 >
40 >~harring
41 >
42 >
43 How close is that ability to portage? Is there interest/room for
44 help/work towards it? I would like to see a more sensible approach to
45 establishing default settings (USE flags not the only thing here). Would
46 help the confusion, and end some of the arts/no-arts, eds/no-eds madness.
47
48 Would also aid end users in beginning to customize their system rather
49 than simply using a default setup.
50
51 What about the other 3 problems I myself raised?
52
53 -Chandler Carruth
54 --
55 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stupid USE defaults that need cleaning Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>