Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is gnome becoming obligatory?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 10/12/2017 13:55, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> On P, 2017-12-10 at 08:56 +0000, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:12 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@×××××××××.co.
>>> uk> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 9 December 2017 12:00:12 GMT Jorge Almeida wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.co
>>>>> m> wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you all for detailed and clear replies.  You'd forgive
>>>>>> me for
>>>>>> being (a little) paranoid about Poettering's fingers getting
>>>>>> anywhere
>>>>>> near my systems.>
>>>>>> :-p
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure you need udisks? And policykit?
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure Mick runs KDE, which requires both of those.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Eventually emerging @world will just pull in the entirety of the
>>> Gentoo package repository, and we won't have to worry about what is
>>> or
>>> isn't necessary.
>>>
>> Not that I would object much to have gnome-common if I needed it (I
>> don't), but it is a bit
>> shocking that installing kde stuff pulls gnome stuff. After all,
>> they're supposed to be alternative worldviews, er, desktop
>> environments. Maybe the relevant people should stop and think whether
>> unbridled complexity is a good idea?
>
> So you are suggesting that each desktop environment must NIH
> everything?
>
> Want an auto-mounter and disk monitor and more for a modern desktop
> experience - reimplement udisks.
> Want a secure permissions handling framework for the desktop -
> reimplement polkit.
> Want a user account service handler for desktop logins - reimplement
> accountsservice.
> Want color profiles handling for monitors and co, and other associated
> stuff - reimplement colord.
> And so on.
>
> That's all "GNOME stuff" by your definition, with GNOME Foundation
> members being the project leaders or starters.
>
> Meanwhile gnome-common is just a package for m4 macros for the older
> autotools using world, and is deprecated in favor of autoconf-archive,
> which had the good things of gnome-common integrated into it. Please
> remove that package too, if you want to NIH.
>
>
> People, this is open source. Stop advocating NIH and make use of the
> benefits of open source and let the people actually doing stuff
> collaborate on things and re-use/share projects as they see fit, for
> less time waste and more making GNU/Linux (desktops) great over the
> proprietary others.
>
>

Let's say we renamed the package:

s/gnome-common/useful-build-stuffs/g

No other change, just a package rename. And suddenly this entire thread
never ever happens at all.

People, you all need to step back, sleep on it, and knock off the
knee-jerking. It is 4 useful m4 files, utterly dwarfed by any package
you can mention that installs even a single man page.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com