[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1270 bytes --]

Hi there!

Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking place 22 
Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having Gentoo 
GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting 
desktop profile to DE-specific subprofiles, to avoid bloat and provide desktop 
specific separation which should result in desktop subprofiles being actually 
practical.
It's been proposed to:

- keep 'desktop' profile but strip it from any desktop specific features and 
settings, making it default recommended choice for anyone using non-KDE and 
non-GNOME desktop environment, yet avoiding USE flags bloat. Any other DE is 
free to join and create own DE-specific subprofile if needed.

- create 'KDE' (or 'kde') and 'GNOME' (or 'gnome') subprofiles within 
'desktop' profile and move any desktop specific things there. This should in 
theory allow us to not add 'recommended' IUSE defaults to desktop specific 
packages, but keep those settings in profile - making profile effectively 'out 
of the box' solution for those who need it.

If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this 
change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.

Thanks

-- 
regards
MM

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

2009/10/24 Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com>:
> If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this
> change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
>

What about people who like to install both gnome and kde on their
systems? (Perhaps different users on the computer use different DEs)
It probably won't be a problem in the short term (people can just
select one profile and add the missing USE-flags to make.conf). But it
/might/ get unwieldy in the future if more USE-flags and USE_EXPAND-ed
variables make their way into the DE-specific profiles.

Since multiple inheritance is not worth the work, I would suggest each
project team maintain some minimal documentation in their doc space
about the USE-flags and USE_EXPAND-ed variables enabled in each
profile.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> 2009/10/24 Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com>:
>> If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this
>> change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
>>
> 
> What about people who like to install both gnome and kde on their
> systems? (Perhaps different users on the computer use different DEs)
> It probably won't be a problem in the short term (people can just
> select one profile and add the missing USE-flags to make.conf). But it
> /might/ get unwieldy in the future if more USE-flags and USE_EXPAND-ed
> variables make their way into the DE-specific profiles.
> 
> Since multiple inheritance is not worth the work, I would suggest each
> project team maintain some minimal documentation in their doc space
> about the USE-flags and USE_EXPAND-ed variables enabled in each
> profile.
> 

You can make your /etc/profile a real profile instead of symlink and
using multiple inheritance inherit both GNOME and KDE. The instructions
are in man 5 portage.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Jeremy Olexa]

Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking place 22 
> Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having Gentoo 
> GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting 
> desktop profile to DE-specific subprofiles, to avoid bloat and provide desktop 
> specific separation which should result in desktop subprofiles being actually 
> practical.
> It's been proposed to:
> 
> - keep 'desktop' profile but strip it from any desktop specific features and 
> settings, making it default recommended choice for anyone using non-KDE and 
> non-GNOME desktop environment, yet avoiding USE flags bloat. Any other DE is 
> free to join and create own DE-specific subprofile if needed.

Hi,
Just so it is clear and there aren't any questions in the future. The 
XFCE team maintains a set of recommended global use flags in our docs[1] 
(maintained by Josh (nightmorph)). So, whatever direction this ends up, 
xfce will not be going down that same road.

Additionally, One cool thing about Gentoo is that you *can* have more 
than one DE installed. We don't have things like KGentoo =P I hope this 
profile thing doesn't make it harder for end users to use GNOME and KDE 
at the same time.

-Jeremy

[1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml


> 
> - create 'KDE' (or 'kde') and 'GNOME' (or 'gnome') subprofiles within 
> 'desktop' profile and move any desktop specific things there. This should in 
> theory allow us to not add 'recommended' IUSE defaults to desktop specific 
> packages, but keep those settings in profile - making profile effectively 'out 
> of the box' solution for those who need it.
> 
> If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this 
> change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
> 
> Thanks
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1585 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 of October 2009 16:00:03 Jeremy Olexa wrote:

> Just so it is clear and there aren't any questions in the future. The
> XFCE team maintains a set of recommended global use flags in our docs[1]
> (maintained by Josh (nightmorph)). So, whatever direction this ends up,
> xfce will not be going down that same road.

Well, if XFCE 'satisfying use deps' USE flags are not excessive, I think they 
could stay in desktop (parent) profile of course as desktop profile is meant 
for general use desktop. This would address some parts of Nirbheek's concern.

> Additionally, One cool thing about Gentoo is that you *can* have more
> than one DE installed. We don't have things like KGentoo =P I hope this
> profile thing doesn't make it harder for end users to use GNOME and KDE
> at the same time.

That's the 'edge' case we encounter. Of course splitting desktop profile 
*will* make it harder for them to have GNOME and KDE at the same time. But, to 
be clear, we're talking here mainly about default USE flags (not gnome-base/* 
entries in package.mask in KDE subprofile... hmm, jmbsvicetto? worth 
considering... ;) )
Splitting profiles is to provide out of the box desktop specific solutions 
(because that's what majority uses afaik, though I don't have any poll to back 
my words), not to prevent anyone from mixing things - those may just need the 
same package.use/make.conf effort to set it up (mainly to satisfy USE deps, as 
one can put recommended USE flags in +EAPI-1 IUSE in desktop environment 
ebuilds after all).

-- 
regards
MM

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:00:03 -0500
Jeremy Olexa <darkside@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Just so it is clear and there aren't any questions in the future. The 
> XFCE team maintains a set of recommended global use flags in our
> docs[1] (maintained by Josh (nightmorph)). So, whatever direction
> this ends up, xfce will not be going down that same road.

The x11-wm/musca team has voted unanimously to follow the same path so
that XFCE won't feel lonely. THERE WILL BE NO MUSCA SUB-PROFILE.


Regards,
     jer ;)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Jesús Guerrero]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:42:17 +0200, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking
place
> 22 
> Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having
> Gentoo 
> GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting 
> desktop profile to DE-specific subprofiles, to avoid bloat and provide
> desktop 
> specific separation which should result in desktop subprofiles being
> actually 
> practical.
> It's been proposed to:
> 
> - keep 'desktop' profile but strip it from any desktop specific features
> and 
> settings, making it default recommended choice for anyone using non-KDE
> and 
> non-GNOME desktop environment, yet avoiding USE flags bloat. Any other
DE
> is 
> free to join and create own DE-specific subprofile if needed.
> 
> - create 'KDE' (or 'kde') and 'GNOME' (or 'gnome') subprofiles within 
> 'desktop' profile and move any desktop specific things there. This
should
> in 
> theory allow us to not add 'recommended' IUSE defaults to desktop
specific 
> packages, but keep those settings in profile - making profile
effectively
> 'out 
> of the box' solution for those who need it.
> 
> If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this 
> change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.

I fail to see how this is simpler and/or more versatile than simply using
USE="kde gnome", USE="-kde gnome", USE="-gnome kde" or USE="-gnome -kde".
What exactly are we going to gain by adding yet another level of complexity
where two simple USE flags suffice? I don't think it's even more elegant,
and in the worst case, it makes the things uselessly complicated when you
want to use both desktops.

We could also add an "image" subprofile, for those wanting USE="jpeg svg
png tiff" etc. Or an "fb" profile, for those only wanting USE="-X
directfb". It's a nonsense, I know. The desktop subprofiles are also a
nonsense to me :p

Just my opinion of course :)

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 456 bytes --]

On Sunday 25 October 2009 03:41:10 Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> I fail to see how this is simpler and/or more versatile than simply using
> USE="kde gnome", USE="-kde gnome", USE="-gnome kde" or USE="-gnome -kde".
> What exactly are we going to gain by adding yet another level of complexity
> where two simple USE flags suffice?

you've missed some like USE=eds.  i hate that damn thing, but it really only 
makes sense in a GNOME environment.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[AllenJB]

Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking place 22 
> Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon), having Gentoo 
> GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead with splitting 
> desktop profile to DE-specific subprofiles, to avoid bloat and provide desktop 
> specific separation which should result in desktop subprofiles being actually 
> practical.
> It's been proposed to:
> 
> - keep 'desktop' profile but strip it from any desktop specific features and 
> settings, making it default recommended choice for anyone using non-KDE and 
> non-GNOME desktop environment, yet avoiding USE flags bloat. Any other DE is 
> free to join and create own DE-specific subprofile if needed.
> 
> - create 'KDE' (or 'kde') and 'GNOME' (or 'gnome') subprofiles within 
> 'desktop' profile and move any desktop specific things there. This should in 
> theory allow us to not add 'recommended' IUSE defaults to desktop specific 
> packages, but keep those settings in profile - making profile effectively 'out 
> of the box' solution for those who need it.
> 
> If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this 
> change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
> 
> Thanks
> 

As a user and someone who provides support on IRC regularly, I think
extra profiles in this manner is unnecessary complexity. At a guestimate
there's going to be less than 10 USE flags difference between the profiles.

(New) users already find it confusing what the differences between
profiles are (the number of users I've seen using a "developer" profile
because they do some programming, for example*) and frankly I think
having these extra profiles will make some users think you can only have
one of kde or gnome.

Why are we talking about "out of the box" with a distro that doesn't
even come with a pre-compile kernel? Or X installed? Gentoo isn't an
"out of the box" distro. If disabling use flags is considered too
confusing for users, maybe the entire system needs to be revised.


* Why is the developer profile even shown on "eselect profile"? Wouldn't
it be better to keep "unsupported" profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo
devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little
sanity preservation for the rest of us?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Samuli Suominen]

AllenJB wrote:
> * Why is the developer profile even shown on "eselect profile"? Wouldn't
> it be better to keep "unsupported" profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo
> devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little
> sanity preservation for the rest of us?

It's not only for Gentoo developers, but for /Software/ developers in
general. IMHO.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[AllenJB]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> AllenJB wrote:
>> * Why is the developer profile even shown on "eselect profile"? Wouldn't
>> it be better to keep "unsupported" profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo
>> devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little
>> sanity preservation for the rest of us?
> 
> It's not only for Gentoo developers, but for /Software/ developers in
> general. IMHO.
> 
General software developers should have the following features enabled?
- test (all test suites)
- stricter (horribly strict portage handling)
- digest (ignore package digests)
- cvs (not even documented in "man make.conf")
- sign (gpg key signing for cvs manifest commits)

As well as the infamous
I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING="yes"

Certainly test, stricter and digest are all known to me to cause issues
for anyone who doesn't understand what they do and why.

AllenJB

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:11:38 +0200
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> AllenJB wrote:
> > * Why is the developer profile even shown on "eselect profile"? Wouldn't
> > it be better to keep "unsupported" profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo
> > devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little
> > sanity preservation for the rest of us?
> 
> It's not only for Gentoo developers, but for /Software/ developers in
> general. IMHO.

Uhh . . . no, it's not. A long time ago I talked with the folks who created the profile, and that's why I put the following into our profile documentation. This is seen in all handbooks:

<note>
The <c>developer</c> subprofile is specifically for Gentoo Linux development
tasks. It is <e>not</e> meant to help set up general development environments.
</note>

. . . so no, it's not for general software development; it's to help out the hundreds of developers and users who are performing Gentoo development activities. Developing Gentoo is not like writing some random piece of software. This profile is for our special requirements, nothing else.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Zeerak Waseem]

Having recently installed gentoo, I can see hwo it could get confusing  
with DE specific profiles. Especially as a number of users that are new to  
linux might very well have no idea what DE they're going to use. And the  
same can be said for users who decided to run ubuntu "to try linux" and  
then decide to go further.
having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user, if you  
ask me. Particularly because a number might well believe that having a DE  
specific profile would restrict them to use such profiles.

Instead I'd say it's a better idea to give a suggestion of useflags in the  
handbook for the different choices of DE's.

And also I don't thin it's relevant to talk about gentoo in relation to an  
out-of-box experience. To me it seems to be counterproductive, being that  
by creating an out-of-box experience would, intially at least, make  
choices on the users behalf, which is against gentoo's philosophy as I  
understand it.
The way I understand Gentoo, is it is a distro to allow freedom of choice,  
whether it being a choice of having a graphical interface or a choice of  
which graphical interface. And to aim for an out-of-box experience, is  
counteracting that freedom, or rather, only allowing a choice of removing  
it after the decision has already been made for you.

I don't think the developer profile should be removed however. There could  
very well be users installing gentoo, with the purpose of getting involved  
with developing gentoo. So the profile should be there, and it is well  
enough documented as being geared towards developing gentoo, and not  
developing in general.


> (New) users already find it confusing what the differences between
> profiles are (the number of users I've seen using a "developer" profile
> because they do some programming, for example*) and frankly I think
> having these extra profiles will make some users think you can only have
> one of kde or gnome.
>
> Why are we talking about "out of the box" with a distro that doesn't
> even come with a pre-compile kernel? Or X installed? Gentoo isn't an
> "out of the box" distro. If disabling use flags is considered too
> confusing for users, maybe the entire system needs to be revised.
>
>
> * Why is the developer profile even shown on "eselect profile"? Wouldn't
> it be better to keep "unsupported" profiles off this list. Surely Gentoo
> devs can cope with setting their profile manually in favor of a little
> sanity preservation for the rest of us?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Alex Alexander]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 21:42, Zeerak Waseem <zeerak.w@gmail.com> wrote:
> having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user

Why all the fuss? No-one said we're removing the plain "desktop"
profile, we're simply adding *more* options.

If you want generic DE options pre-enabled, choose the desktop profile.
If you *know* you only need KDE as your DE, choose KDE,
If you *know* you only need GNOME as your DE, choose GNOME,
If you need both or can't decide, either choose Desktop and add the
USE flags yourself or use both profiles together.

Beats enabling default USE flags without asking you :)

-- 
Alex || wired
Gentoo Dev
www.linuxized.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Dale]

Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 21:42, Zeerak Waseem <zeerak.w@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user
>>     
>
> Why all the fuss? No-one said we're removing the plain "desktop"
> profile, we're simply adding *more* options.
>
> If you want generic DE options pre-enabled, choose the desktop profile.
> If you *know* you only need KDE as your DE, choose KDE,
> If you *know* you only need GNOME as your DE, choose GNOME,
> If you need both or can't decide, either choose Desktop and add the
> USE flags yourself or use both profiles together.
>
> Beats enabling default USE flags without asking you :)
>
>   

+1.  This is adding options not taking away.  I like this idea since you
can still do it the old way with no problems at all.  Plus this will
make my USE line shorter.  It has to help a little at least.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Jesús Guerrero]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:52:04 +0200, Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 21:42, Zeerak Waseem <zeerak.w@gmail.com> wrote:
>> having to choose a profile, gives less time for the wavering user
> 
> Why all the fuss? No-one said we're removing the plain "desktop"
> profile, we're simply adding *more* options.
> 
> If you want generic DE options pre-enabled, choose the desktop profile.
> If you *know* you only need KDE as your DE, choose KDE,
> If you *know* you only need GNOME as your DE, choose GNOME,
> If you need both or can't decide, either choose Desktop and add the
> USE flags yourself or use both profiles together.
> 
> Beats enabling default USE flags without asking you :)

My personal definition of bloat: "to add complexity for no real gain on
features". Adding a profile just because it's a cool way to do the same
thing that *one* single USE flag can do is a nonsense *to me*.

I am already hearing all the new (and old) users asking what the damn
difference between the flag and the profile is. It's a cool way to create
extra traffic and confusion for absolutely no benefit. But hey, maybe it's
just that my old brain can't cope with the coolness :)
-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Robert Buchholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 October 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking
> place 22 Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available
> soon), having Gentoo GNOME team representative, it's been decided to
> go ahead with splitting desktop profile to DE-specific subprofiles,
> to avoid bloat and provide desktop specific separation which should
> result in desktop subprofiles being actually practical.

(From your email) I fail to see the advantage as other commenters have 
pointed out. What problem is there that cannot be solved using 
dependencies and kde/gnome use flags? This decision just seems to 
increase the split between KDE and Gnome and that does not reflect 
user's realities: They use both. Gnome desktop + kmail, k3b, yakuake or 
KDE with evince, etc.

Why add one more decision to make where the result is unclear (and 
honestly, profile documentation is almost zero)?


Robert

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 24/10/2009 15:42, Maciej Mrozowski a écrit :
> If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this
> change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.

IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with.

I've always considered Gentoo to be an "opt-in" distro where after a 
successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of 
installing new packages.

Finding out what USE flags mean and do is part of the Gentoo experience. 
If we were doing spin-off distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do, then 
subprofiles would be fine, but we're not.

So with my X hat on, I won't be adding any "X" subprofile.

And with my (former?) Gnome hat on, I vote against any "gnome" subprofile.

Cheers,

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]

On Monday 26 of October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote:

> IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with.

> I've always considered Gentoo to be an "opt-in" distro where after a
> successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of
> installing new packages.

> Finding out what USE flags mean and do is part of the Gentoo experience.
> If we were doing spin-off distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do, then
> subprofiles would be fine, but we're not.

> So with my X hat on, I won't be adding any "X" subprofile.

> And with my (former?) Gnome hat on, I vote against any "gnome" subprofile.

I most cases I agree with you. To be more specific - desktop profile should be 
annihilated because it's a joke. It's impractical and bloated.
Splitting it to "kde" and "gnome" is just nicer way of annihilating it.
However, considering amount of confused users on IRC and forums, especially 
after KDE4 stabilization and Qt4 default USE flags change, and considering no 
automatic USE flags management provided by portage (for example via --
interactive mode) - there's no way to make it easier to use.

Making something "easier to use" does not necessarily need to mean "less 
flexible". It we're to provide mostly learning experience and not practical 
solutions, why not rename Gentoo to Eduentoo :)

And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals (sic! 
like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to get to know 
what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when someone forgot (or 
decided not to) describe it in metadata.xml even when semantics is different?
Maybe I sound too harsh here, but that's because I'm not ideologist - I'm 
practical man.

-- 
regards
MM

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Josh Sled]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> writes:
> And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals (sic! 
> like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to get to know 
> what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when someone forgot (or 
> decided not to) describe it in metadata.xml even when semantics is different?
> Maybe I sound too harsh here, but that's because I'm not ideologist - I'm 
> practical man.

If the point of the distribution is – like some other distros – to have
a high-functioning, high-polish, well-integrated system and desktop with
a minimal amount of end-user knowledge, then, yes, the goal should be
for end-users to not need to know about such things.

But profiles, make.conf, USE flags (especially!), elog, &c. … these
things are not "internals", but instead the interface the package
manager presents to its user.  They are the "language" the user is
expected to speak in to interact with her system.  The trade off for
doing this is more and finer-grained control over the system, and the
reason people choose Gentoo.  Even ebuilds themselves are (usually)
sufficiently non-magical that I think they could qualify in some
circumstances, though that quickly starts to get into eclasses, PM
behavior and real "internals".

-- 
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Duncan]

Maciej Mrozowski posted on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:40:17 +0100 as excerpted:

> And I fail to see *any* point in forcing users to learn Gentoo internals
> (sic! like USE flags). What else? Ebuild syntax so that they're able to
> get to know what particular global USE flag is responsible for, when
> someone forgot (or decided not to) describe it in metadata.xml even when
> semantics is different? Maybe I sound too harsh here, but that's because
> I'm not ideologist - I'm practical man.

Actually, yes.  Gentoo has never been a hand-holding distribution.  We 
try to provide documentation and reasonable defaults for any apps the 
user chooses to install, and let the user configure what they will.

For some time I've wondered about all those profiles.  IMO, for pure/
normal USE flag issues, we don't need profiles.  Profiles are for things 
such as setting the arch, masking stuff that won't run on that arch, 
doing the necessary to make multilib work as appropriate, setting up a 
basic "system" set of packages, etc.

After that, it's upto[1] the user.  USE flags are documented in the 
handbook, and a major defining part of what makes Gentoo, Gentoo.  If 
they can't even manage to learn USE flag basics, honestly, they'd be 
better off with a different distribution, probably something that does a 
bit more hand-holding, like Ubuntu, because they're going thru a whole 
lot of additional hassle compiling stuff, etc, for very little payoff in 
practical terms, because they simply aren't using Gentoo as it was 
designed to be used.

So IMO, few if any USE flags should be set in the profiles.  That is, or 
should be, upto the user to decide.  In general, if a USE flag is not set 
in a user's make.conf, it shouldn't be on, with few exceptions definitely 
not at the system level, and with some exceptions, not at the individual 
ebuild/pkg level either.

---

[1] "Upto": Yeah, I know, but Wictionary already defines it as a "common 
misspelling", so make it even more common and eventually it'll no longer 
be a misspelling but considered normal and correct usage, just as into is 
no longer a misspelling but normal and correct usage.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Richard Freeman]

Duncan wrote:
> Actually, yes.  Gentoo has never been a hand-holding distribution.  We 
> try to provide documentation and reasonable defaults for any apps the 
> user chooses to install, and let the user configure what they will.
> 

Gentoo is about choice.  Well, except for the choice to not have to 
choose...

I don't see why having some nice polished sets of use flags is a bad 
thing.  Personally, I find it a pain when I've emerged half of my system 
only to find out I left out some critical use flag (my use flags take up 
several lines now).  Sure, leave users a choice, but there is no harm in 
giving them some pointers.

Gentoo should be fully usable in a USE="" state, but that doesn't mean 
that we need to make users start out from this point.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 26/10/2009 22:58, Richard Freeman a écrit :
> Gentoo is about choice.

No it isn't. Gentoo is about empowering users, giving them the ability 
and tools to _change_ the distro to _their_ needs.

Gentoo does _not_ cater to all the possible needs.

This is somewhat off-topic, but it irks me every time I see/hear it, so 
there.

Cheers,

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Richard Freeman]

Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 26/10/2009 22:58, Richard Freeman a écrit :
>> Gentoo is about choice.
> 
> No it isn't. Gentoo is about empowering users, giving them the ability 
> and tools to _change_ the distro to _their_ needs.
> 
> Gentoo does _not_ cater to all the possible needs.
> 
> This is somewhat off-topic, but it irks me every time I see/hear it, so 
> there.

Well, I'm not sure I see any contradiction.  When people say that gentoo 
is about choice, it means that we should give the end-user flexibility 
whenever it is feasible.  Of course that doesn't mean that there should 
be a lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag.  However, if KDE 4.2 includes a 
lunar lander module we should in fact add such a flag for the benefit of 
those of us who don't own space programs.

So, Gentoo isn't about choice.  Gentoo is about empowering users.  And 
we do that by giving them a choice whenever we can afford to.  So, 
Gentoo is about choice.  Q.E.A. ;)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1773 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:07:08PM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> R??mi Cardona wrote:
> > Le 26/10/2009 22:58, Richard Freeman a ??crit :
> >> Gentoo is about choice.
> > 
> > No it isn't. Gentoo is about empowering users, giving them the ability 
> > and tools to _change_ the distro to _their_ needs.
> > 
> > Gentoo does _not_ cater to all the possible needs.
> > 
> > This is somewhat off-topic, but it irks me every time I see/hear it, so 
> > there.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure I see any contradiction.  When people say that gentoo 
> is about choice, it means that we should give the end-user flexibility 
> whenever it is feasible.  Of course that doesn't mean that there should 
> be a lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag.  However, if KDE 4.2 includes a 
> lunar lander module we should in fact add such a flag for the benefit of 
> those of us who don't own space programs.

Agreed.  However, I think the discussion is around whether we should enable
the lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag by default and where it should be
enabled by us if we do enable it.

Since profiles override IUSE defaults, if we enable the flag in the
profiles, this means that it will be enabled for all packages that have
the use flag, regardless of whether they are KDE related, unless the
user disables the flag in make.conf or package.use.

On the other hand, if we enable it with IUSE defaults at the
package level, it lets the user decide whether or not they want it to be
enabled for their entire system by editing make.conf.

Imho the profiles should enable only use flags that are necessary for
running that profile and allow users and package maintainers to control
the rest.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
williamh@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1828 bytes --]

William Hubbs schrieb:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:07:08PM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
>> R??mi Cardona wrote:
>>> Le 26/10/2009 22:58, Richard Freeman a ??crit :
>>>> Gentoo is about choice.
>>> No it isn't. Gentoo is about empowering users, giving them the ability 
>>> and tools to _change_ the distro to _their_ needs.
>>>
>>> Gentoo does _not_ cater to all the possible needs.
>>>
>>> This is somewhat off-topic, but it irks me every time I see/hear it, so 
>>> there.
>> Well, I'm not sure I see any contradiction.  When people say that gentoo 
>> is about choice, it means that we should give the end-user flexibility 
>> whenever it is feasible.  Of course that doesn't mean that there should 
>> be a lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag.  However, if KDE 4.2 includes a 
>> lunar lander module we should in fact add such a flag for the benefit of 
>> those of us who don't own space programs.
> 
> Agreed.  However, I think the discussion is around whether we should enable
> the lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag by default and where it should be
> enabled by us if we do enable it.
> 
> Since profiles override IUSE defaults, if we enable the flag in the
> profiles, this means that it will be enabled for all packages that have
> the use flag, regardless of whether they are KDE related, unless the
> user disables the flag in make.conf or package.use.
> 
> On the other hand, if we enable it with IUSE defaults at the
> package level, it lets the user decide whether or not they want it to be
> enabled for their entire system by editing make.conf.

Are you sure about this part? Afaik IUSE defaults overrides make.conf, you will have to explicitly
add an entry to package.use for every package, where it is enabled per IUSE default.


-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2321 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:43:52PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:07:08PM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> >> R??mi Cardona wrote:
> >>> Le 26/10/2009 22:58, Richard Freeman a ??crit :
> >>>> Gentoo is about choice.
> >>> No it isn't. Gentoo is about empowering users, giving them the ability 
> >>> and tools to _change_ the distro to _their_ needs.
> >>>
> >>> Gentoo does _not_ cater to all the possible needs.
> >>>
> >>> This is somewhat off-topic, but it irks me every time I see/hear it, so 
> >>> there.
> >> Well, I'm not sure I see any contradiction.  When people say that gentoo 
> >> is about choice, it means that we should give the end-user flexibility 
> >> whenever it is feasible.  Of course that doesn't mean that there should 
> >> be a lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag.  However, if KDE 4.2 includes a 
> >> lunar lander module we should in fact add such a flag for the benefit of 
> >> those of us who don't own space programs.
> > 
> > Agreed.  However, I think the discussion is around whether we should enable
> > the lunar-lander-in-a-box use flag by default and where it should be
> > enabled by us if we do enable it.
> > 
> > Since profiles override IUSE defaults, if we enable the flag in the
> > profiles, this means that it will be enabled for all packages that have
> > the use flag, regardless of whether they are KDE related, unless the
> > user disables the flag in make.conf or package.use.
> > 
> > On the other hand, if we enable it with IUSE defaults at the
> > package level, it lets the user decide whether or not they want it to be
> > enabled for their entire system by editing make.conf.
> 
> Are you sure about this part? Afaik IUSE defaults overrides make.conf, you will have to explicitly
> add an entry to package.use for every package, where it is enabled per IUSE default.

I just tested this, and make.conf overrides iuse defaults.  To verify
this for yourself, pick a package with an iuse default turning on a
flag, then turn off the flag in make.conf and check what would happen if
you emerged the package.

package.use overrides for a single package, but make.conf overrides for
all of your system.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
williamh@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:29 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I just tested this, and make.conf overrides iuse defaults.  To verify
> this for yourself, pick a package with an iuse default turning on a
> flag, then turn off the flag in make.conf and check what would happen if
> you emerged the package.
>
> package.use overrides for a single package, but make.conf overrides for
> all of your system.
>

This behaviour is controlled by the variable USE_ORDER. make.globals
sets this to:

USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:env.d"


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:37:38PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:29 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I just tested this, and make.conf overrides iuse defaults. ??To verify
> > this for yourself, pick a package with an iuse default turning on a
> > flag, then turn off the flag in make.conf and check what would happen if
> > you emerged the package.
> >
> > package.use overrides for a single package, but make.conf overrides for
> > all of your system.
> >
> 
> This behaviour is controlled by the variable USE_ORDER. make.globals
> sets this to:
> 
> USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:env.d"
 
That is correct, and the documentation (man make.conf) gives a very
strong warning about changing this setting:

"Do not modify this value unless you are a developer and you know what you
are doing.  If you change this and something breaks, we will not help
you fix it."

I can't find the bug right now, but at one point I asked in a bug about
the possibility of switching the order of defaults and pkginternal on
the grounds that if a maintainer wants to disable a use flag for a
package that is enabled in the profile they can't because the profile
overrides the iuse defaults.  It was closed as wontfix because it has
been agreed that the profile's use flag settings should have a higher
priority than the ebuild's.  I'm cool with that, but that is also why I
think the use flags the profiles enable should be the bare essentials
for using that profile.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
williamh@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Zeerak Waseem]

When it all comes down, I just fail to see how the handbook doesn't  
provide the pointers. I've always been about getting my system up and  
running, and then learn whatever needs learning, this means that whilst I  
didn't have more than a basic knowledge and understanding of useflags when  
installing, that knowledge has grown due to necessity of using gentoo to  
it's full potential. I think setting up useflags should be left to the  
user. A system can be recompiled should the need arise.
The reason I chose gentoo as my distribution was that, it seemed to me  
that it gives you a basic knowledge of the system and then encourages to  
gain and apply further knowledge according to need.
But again, the handbook gives all the necessary pointers, albeit there can  
occur conflicts that are outside of the range of the handbook, but that's  
why the forums and the irc channels are there :-)

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:58:57 +0100, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>  
wrote:

> I don't see why having some nice polished sets of use flags is a bad  
> thing.  Personally, I find it a pain when I've emerged half of my system  
> only to find out I left out some critical use flag (my use flags take up  
> several lines now).  Sure, leave users a choice, but there is no harm in  
> giving them some pointers.
>
> Gentoo should be fully usable in a USE="" state, but that doesn't mean  
> that we need to make users start out from this point.
>


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Monday 26 October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 24/10/2009 15:42, Maciej Mrozowski a écrit :
> > If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this
> > change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
> 
> IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with.
> 
> I've always considered Gentoo to be an "opt-in" distro where after a
> successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of
> installing new packages.
> 
> Finding out what USE flags mean and do is part of the Gentoo experience.
> If we were doing spin-off distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do, then
> subprofiles would be fine, but we're not.
> 

So hmm, let me make few hypothetical statements. You see package foo-libs/baz 
has USE="pic" that is not set by default in profile. It's well documented in 
metadata.xml which says "disable optimized assembly code that is not PIC 
friendly". So as an ordinary user you set it in your make.conf because it may 
be helpful. Then you want to install another package with USE="pic" but you 
note this useflag for this package means "Force shared libraries to be built as 
PIC (this is slower)". Of course you don't want your programs run slower, do 
you? So you disable useflag in make.conf or package.use. This situation may 
lead user to reinstall half of his system, because some packages with USE="-
pic" force foo-libs/baz[-pic] and foo-libs/bar[-pic] too. You end up with 
nothing after some time spent on reading metadata.xml, recompilling foo, bar, 
baz... just because you were forced to have a choice.

IMO profiles are very good solution for every user. Especially for those that 
don't know what every use flag means and they (profiles) should have at least  
base useflags set. And if base, why not most of useful? They are only option. 
User can alwasy disable it (eg. -kde if he wants gnome, -gnome if he wants kde 
or - both if he uses openbox).

My $0,02.

-- 
Cheers
Dawid Węgliński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Zeerak Waseem]

But instead of just giving the user the answer, wouldn't it be more  
appropriate, as far as understanding useflags and their uses goes, to give  
users lists of useflags and what they do. Ie a list of base use flags for  
say, kde, and also what basic useflags to disable, and a suggestion to  
read the descriptions of the useflags to add what's necessary. As the  
handbook currently does. I think with the documentation, one should have  
enough information to assess what useflags are desired for one's system.  
And then I'd suggest looking at the packages and the need for various use  
flags individually, if you want to. But the documentation provides basic  
useflags for running your system.
But again, this is just my take on it :-)

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:08:30 +0100, Dawid Węgliński <cla@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Monday 26 October 2009 21:06:04 Rémi Cardona wrote:
>> Le 24/10/2009 15:42, Maciej Mrozowski a écrit :
>> > If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding  
>> this
>> > change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
>>
>> IMHO, we shouldn't even have desktop/server subprofiles to begin with.
>>
>> I've always considered Gentoo to be an "opt-in" distro where after a
>> successful install, you end up with a bash prompt and a _means_ of
>> installing new packages.
>>
>> Finding out what USE flags mean and do is part of the Gentoo experience.
>> If we were doing spin-off distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do, then
>> subprofiles would be fine, but we're not.
>>
>
> So hmm, let me make few hypothetical statements. You see package  
> foo-libs/baz
> has USE="pic" that is not set by default in profile. It's well  
> documented in
> metadata.xml which says "disable optimized assembly code that is not PIC
> friendly". So as an ordinary user you set it in your make.conf because  
> it may
> be helpful. Then you want to install another package with USE="pic" but  
> you
> note this useflag for this package means "Force shared libraries to be  
> built as
> PIC (this is slower)". Of course you don't want your programs run  
> slower, do
> you? So you disable useflag in make.conf or package.use. This situation  
> may
> lead user to reinstall half of his system, because some packages with  
> USE="-
> pic" force foo-libs/baz[-pic] and foo-libs/bar[-pic] too. You end up with
> nothing after some time spent on reading metadata.xml, recompilling foo,  
> bar,
> baz... just because you were forced to have a choice.
>
> IMO profiles are very good solution for every user. Especially for those  
> that
> don't know what every use flag means and they (profiles) should have at  
> least
> base useflags set. And if base, why not most of useful? They are only  
> option.
> User can alwasy disable it (eg. -kde if he wants gnome, -gnome if he  
> wants kde
> or - both if he uses openbox).
>
> My $0,02.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:26:38 Zeerak Waseem wrote:
> But instead of just giving the user the answer, wouldn't it be more
> appropriate, as far as understanding useflags and their uses goes, to give
> users lists of useflags and what they do. Ie a list of base use flags for
> say, kde, and also what basic useflags to disable, and a suggestion to
> read the descriptions of the useflags to add what's necessary. As the
> handbook currently does. I think with the documentation, one should have
> enough information to assess what useflags are desired for one's system.
> And then I'd suggest looking at the packages and the need for various use
> flags individually, if you want to. But the documentation provides basic
> useflags for running your system.
> But again, this is just my take on it :-)
> 

No. Handbook doesn't provide information on every useflag. For this you have 
use{.local.,.}desc in PORTDIR/profiles/. And again, if you missread my previous 
post - there's no way to standarize *every* useflag and tell user "flag foo does 
bar". It's developer who should decide on behalf of user what's the best 
configuration. And user has always choice to disable some useflags and create 
his own configuration for his requirements.

-- 
Cheers
Dawid Węgliński

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:34:55 Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:26:38 Zeerak Waseem wrote:
> > But instead of just giving the user the answer, wouldn't it be more
> > appropriate, as far as understanding useflags and their uses goes, to
> > give users lists of useflags and what they do. Ie a list of base use
> > flags for say, kde, and also what basic useflags to disable, and a
> > suggestion to read the descriptions of the useflags to add what's
> > necessary. As the handbook currently does. I think with the
> > documentation, one should have enough information to assess what useflags
> > are desired for one's system. And then I'd suggest looking at the
> > packages and the need for various use flags individually, if you want to.
> > But the documentation provides basic useflags for running your system.
> > But again, this is just my take on it :-)
> 
> No. Handbook doesn't provide information on every useflag. For this you
>  have use{.local.,.}desc in PORTDIR/profiles/. And again, if you missread
>  my previous post - there's no way to standarize *every* useflag and tell
>  user "flag foo does bar". It's developer who should decide on behalf of
>  user what's the best configuration. And user has always choice to disable
>  some useflags and create his own configuration for his requirements.
> 

s@best configuration@best minimal configuration@

-- 
Cheers
Dawid Węgliński

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-desktop] [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1680 bytes --]

On Friday 22 January 2010 18:15:49 Ben de Groot wrote:
> 2009/10/24 Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com>:
> > Hi there!
> > 
> > Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking
> > place 22 Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon),
> > having Gentoo GNOME team representative, it's been decided to go ahead
> > with splitting desktop profile to DE-specific subprofiles, to avoid
> > bloat and provide desktop specific separation which should result in
> > desktop subprofiles being actually practical.
> > It's been proposed to:
> > 
> > - keep 'desktop' profile but strip it from any desktop specific features
> > and settings, making it default recommended choice for anyone using
> > non-KDE and non-GNOME desktop environment, yet avoiding USE flags bloat.
> > Any other DE is free to join and create own DE-specific subprofile if
> > needed.
> > 
> > - create 'KDE' (or 'kde') and 'GNOME' (or 'gnome') subprofiles within
> > 'desktop' profile and move any desktop specific things there. This should
> > in theory allow us to not add 'recommended' IUSE defaults to desktop
> > specific packages, but keep those settings in profile - making profile
> > effectively 'out of the box' solution for those who need it.
> > 
> > If you have any comments, suggestions, important notices regarding this
> > change, please keep discussion in gentoo-desktop mailing list.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > --
> > regards
> > MM
> 
> Three months later... Why has this not been implemented yet?
> 
> Cheers,

Just for the record, I will do this tomorrow. Thanks

-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE Team

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]