[gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Maxim Koltsov]

Hi,
I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
So my proposal is to remove it from
profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
> w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
> So my proposal is to remove it from
> profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
>

So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
being on by default?

-A

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/05/2012 08:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov<maksbotan@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
>> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
>> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
>> w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
>> So my proposal is to remove it from
>> profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
>>
>
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> being on by default?
>
> -A
>

An answer to the "But, it has always been like this." is a matter of 
issuing a portage news item (glep 42)

(But yeah, I agree we need to be careful with changing the USE flags set 
globally by profiles)

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Maxim Koltsov]

2012/5/5 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
>> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
>> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
>> w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
>> So my proposal is to remove it from
>> profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
>>
>
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> being on by default?

Well, i just haven't thought about that. Maybe make news item or
something of this kind. But now when i see this simple removal implies
such consequences, i think i can just live with it, disabling manually
:)

> -A
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On Saturday 05 May 2012 13:10:10 Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> > I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> > 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> > default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more users
> > w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it.
> > So my proposal is to remove it from
> > profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any objections?
> 
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> being on by default?

move it from the desktop/ subdir to the versioned trees like 10.0/ and 
2008.0/, and eventually when we create a 11.0/, it'll no longer be the 
default.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/05/2012 06:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov
> <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Hi, I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected 
>> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among 
>> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more
>> users w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it. So my proposal is
>> to remove it from profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any
>> objections?
>> 
> 
> So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it 
> being on by default?
> 
> -A
> 
Users will note the use flag change when they run "emerge -uDN world"
and they will add it to their make.conf. I am also in favor of
dropping ldap from the desktop profiles.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=vd37
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2072 bytes --]

On May 5, 2012 3:14 PM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 05/05/2012 06:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov
> > <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Hi, I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> >> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> >> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more
> >> users w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it. So my proposal is
> >> to remove it from profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any
> >> objections?
> >>
> >
> > So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
> > being on by default?
> >
> > -A
> >
> Users will note the use flag change when they run "emerge -uDN world"
> and they will add it to their make.conf. I am also in favor of
> dropping ldap from the desktop profiles.

I don't like this change much. There are valid use cases for an ldap use
flag in the desktop profile that could break easily with this change.

Also, you could make the same case for adding -ldap to your make.conf
>
> - --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPpXuaAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCJUIP/iwaCfKl5VAQaecbeHD3UnsE
> bvQidUoVOSCEYUaMd7cjmMi2vGpQ5JbYFOedy/tsdiFmuL8ACL8WqtKgfd9j8VGX
> D+hK2QOGx6YKYYYG+QLbU0TaKa95pMK9eQibVeTu+1ptzI9TGUdmbm675FpTn4WL
> ibJAuVESJZWYnbH2rJf8OHCx1J/Re4vBGH9p8s/F8znzAaXcpTFi7HgObXXsVPLA
> AIgUWgsmEcHTQLq83Y79HJhF8h0Y2cUC57icc0ZnVzjHyF10ll//AsDhuFP2ToSp
> NBK+U4tc0NDBdrnyEYSEkEY1DXyXvKp4O6i9bbaFsVnj45Bf8sRPmjRBE2HOcyGJ
> WfZO+tVKnxOfeLeUQ+47jwHmMyyBb6t7YCgX71S17oqOqm+0aV/GmNHPYR9+HxQY
> h1sFHyrkQ8Yh9GtfOn4r6L0YdV2LDP13MaqnOUONwpLN7UWOvv2dhWQDY4iikomh
> 2nLPtHKmChu5HsRfNIRvOPYt4YGjZFtPX2BoKXveWwEsreeZG3Nr0SPIuKubAnKJ
> Sx1Up190ElkNPHdYLIemVOjBoe+R0AGs/QxjTfFhSGog1etWsS4Sm287wqdxkbQo
> HHwSG1zIVMyr7IZEuEOgyEVY9ZTmVA4vSaUPZIv5KLq5o3MdrvPHEkT29lPgcaUZ
> xssurey2d7C0S5j9//SL
> =vd37
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2610 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Dale]

Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
> 
> On May 5, 2012 3:14 PM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org
> <mailto:hwoarang@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 05/05/2012 06:10 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov
>> > <maksbotan@gentoo.org <mailto:maksbotan@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>> >> Hi, I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
>> >> 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
>> >> default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more
>> >> users w/o ldap auth on desktops than with it. So my proposal is
>> >> to remove it from profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults. Any
>> >> objections?
>> >>
>> >
>> > So how are you going to avoid destroying machines that rely on it
>> > being on by default?
>> >
>> > -A
>> >
>> Users will note the use flag change when they run "emerge -uDN world"
>> and they will add it to their make.conf. I am also in favor of
>> dropping ldap from the desktop profiles.
> 
> I don't like this change much. There are valid use cases for an ldap use
> flag in the desktop profile that could break easily with this change.
> 
> Also, you could make the same case for adding -ldap to your make.conf


Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the
change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I was
changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Michael Weber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/05/2012 09:55 PM, Dale wrote:
> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the 
> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I
> was changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.

We should make emerge -v (display USE flags) non-optional.
Users should be trained to recognize the green/red use flag changes.

Do whatever you what, I've set make.conf:USE=ldap on machines relying
on it.

Michael
- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+lkR4ACgkQknrdDGLu8JAOCgEAkb2E7jA8j5XFsxrZfBFQqIRt
Vy4W74nRfvLI5HT/N+sA/3SEZFOA94shWc98c9aYfPEQpSIJi402HuUZenTdPvEN
=ULqw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Francesco Riosa]

2012/5/5 Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 05/05/2012 09:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the
>> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I
>> was changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.
>
> We should make emerge -v (display USE flags) non-optional.
> Users should be trained to recognize the green/red use flag changes.

currently portage _does_ show use changed w/o -v, and show _all_ use
w/ -v, please leave it as is -v is way too verbose to see the changes
in a multi-package merge

> Do whatever you what, I've set make.conf:USE=ldap on machines relying
> on it.
> Michael

Mee too, that sum to zero machines tough

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
>> I don't like this change much. There are valid use cases for an ldap use
>> flag in the desktop profile that could break easily with this change.
>>

There are valid use cases for every USE flag in portage, otherwise
they wouldn't be there.  The fact that SOME people find ldap useful on
a desktop does not mean that it should be the default.

>
> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the
> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I was
> changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.

It has already been suggested that this be prefaced by a news item,
which would be completely sensible for just about any profile USE
change.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Dale]

Michael Weber wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 05/05/2012 09:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Not to mention, you add the possibility that the user may miss the 
>> change since they are not expecting it.  I would expect it when I
>> was changing profiles but not so much just coming out of the blue.
> 
> We should make emerge -v (display USE flags) non-optional.
> Users should be trained to recognize the green/red use flag changes.


I already have mine set that way.  I also try to watch for the changes
but sometimes the way the lines wrap I may miss one here and there.
That has bit me a couple times.  I sort of expect USE flags to stay the
same for the most part.  Profile changes are expected to change things
but I rarely change those.

I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
freaking out.

Dale

:-)  :-)


> 
> Do whatever you what, I've set make.conf:USE=ldap on machines relying
> on it.
> 
> Michael


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Ben]

On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
> same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
> doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
> freaking out.

Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more minimal profile.
What do you guys think?

Cheers,
Ben | yngwin

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Dale]

Ben wrote:
> On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
>> same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
>> doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
>> freaking out.
> 
> Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more minimal profile.
> What do you guys think?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben | yngwin
> 
> 



Me, I don't mind the change but please let us know if the current one is
changed.  Why not put this in for the 2012 or 11 profile?  Whatever
number comes next.  That way the users will know to look and have to
change to the new profile.

 I usually do a emerge -uvaDN world before I change profiles, then
change the profile and repeat with -a.  That is when I expect to see USE
flag changes and lots of other goodies that you devs do.  :-)

Someone mentioned a news item.  That would work but maybe a new and
fancy profile would work too.  Someone may want to make others changes
to while they are at it.

Just a thought.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2230 bytes --]

On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 21:20 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay the
> >> same unless we do something to change them.  If things change without us
> >> doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We don't need any
> >> freaking out.
> > 
> > Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more minimal profile.
> > What do you guys think?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Ben | yngwin
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Me, I don't mind the change but please let us know if the current one is
> changed.  Why not put this in for the 2012 or 11 profile?  Whatever
> number comes next.  That way the users will know to look and have to
> change to the new profile.
> 
>  I usually do a emerge -uvaDN world before I change profiles, then
> change the profile and repeat with -a.  That is when I expect to see USE
> flag changes and lots of other goodies that you devs do.  :-)
> 
> Someone mentioned a news item.  That would work but maybe a new and
> fancy profile would work too.  Someone may want to make others changes
> to while they are at it.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

1) Yes, create a new profile for this change.

2) Create a news item stating the change in default behavior for this
new profile.

3) mention the tools available to help with migrating this change.  (see
below)


I created enalyze in gentoolkit for helping migrate changes like this
without breaking systems. It is also very useful for lost/broken
package.{use,keywords} files.  Both the analyze and rebuild sub-modules
of enalyze can show you how use flags are used for installed packages on
your system. The analyze module shows which flags are default/not and
the pkgs using them.  It can help you decide what you want set in
make.conf.  The rebuild module can generate a new package.{use,
keywords} file for you after considering the defaults and make.conf. In
this case for making profile or make.conf use flag changes so that
everything already installed will remain the same on your system for
upgrades/re-installs.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/06/2012 03:04 AM, Ben wrote:
> On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay
>> the same unless we do something to change them.  If things change
>> without us doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We
>> don't need any freaking out.
> 
> Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more
> minimal profile. What do you guys think?
> 
> Cheers, Ben | yngwin
> 
A new minimal profile targeting who? Desktop users with lightweight
DE/WM ?

Sounds about right to me

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=vbD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:23:25 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> On 05/06/2012 03:04 AM, Ben wrote:
> > On 6 May 2012 08:29, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I mentioned this once a long time ago.  We expect things to stay
> >> the same unless we do something to change them.  If things change
> >> without us doing the change, we tend to freak out a bit.  We
> >> don't need any freaking out.
> > 
> > Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to make a new, more
> > minimal profile. What do you guys think?
> > 
> > Cheers, Ben | yngwin
> > 
> A new minimal profile targeting who? Desktop users with lightweight
> DE/WM ?

I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap...
>

Tend to agree.  I don't think we want to create a new profile every
time we want to change one of the flags.

Some other questionable ones:
emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite
firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it
xulrunner - not even used now

There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at
single flags.  What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly
match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of
them.

As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that
might be a good fit for such a configuration.  I agree that -ldap
isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one.  If you
really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop
at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome.

The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets -
there will always be a "use" for 1 more.  That's why we all run Gentoo
- we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package
maintainers.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1548 bytes --]

El dom, 06-05-2012 a las 07:33 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap...
> >
> 
> Tend to agree.  I don't think we want to create a new profile every
> time we want to change one of the flags.
> 
> Some other questionable ones:
> emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite
> firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it
> xulrunner - not even used now
> 
> There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at
> single flags.  What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly
> match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of
> them.
> 
> As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that
> might be a good fit for such a configuration.  I agree that -ldap
> isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one.  If you
> really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop
> at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome.

Maybe "desktop" should be more lightweight oriented and for people (like
me) wanting more, use gnome/kde instead (or create xfce/lxde... if they
need other flags...)
> 
> The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets -
> there will always be a "use" for 1 more.  That's why we all run Gentoo
> - we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package
> maintainers.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 



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

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/06/2012 03:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 06-05-2012 a las 07:33 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny<mgorny@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap...
>>>
>>
>> Tend to agree.  I don't think we want to create a new profile every
>> time we want to change one of the flags.
>>
>> Some other questionable ones:
>> emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite
>> firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it
>> xulrunner - not even used now
>>
>> There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at
>> single flags.  What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly
>> match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of
>> them.
>>
>> As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that
>> might be a good fit for such a configuration.  I agree that -ldap
>> isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one.  If you
>> really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop
>> at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome.
>
> Maybe "desktop" should be more lightweight oriented and for people (like
> me) wanting more, use gnome/kde instead (or create xfce/lxde... if they
> need other flags...)

There will be no xfce/ sub profile as we don't need one (ever).
Xfce is working fine on default (standard) desktop components from 
freedesktop.org and the GTK+ toolkit.
We can still do our changes directly in the desktop profile, such as, 
enabling USE flags like "thunar" in make.defaults (or if needed, 
package.use) since the flags will only concern packages within xfce-* 
categories and/or Xfce specific packages in other categories.

When this was discussed earlier, the LXDE and ROX maintainers declared 
same, and it seems to still be valid from what I can see.
Only GNOME and KDE maintainers wanted one, because they have packages in 
random categories which can be used in a generic way, or oriented 
towards their desktops.

As in, desktop is (or should be) already the lightweight version.
The story behind USE flags like ldap and cups are spawning from 
something else, and I'm all for removing them both.

>>
>> The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets -
>> there will always be a "use" for 1 more.  That's why we all run Gentoo
>> - we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package
>> maintainers.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 411 bytes --]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Some other questionable ones:
> emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open

We've had this discussion before... The question is not "are people
likely to want emboss?". The question is "of people who use packages
that have an emboss use flag, are those people likely to want emboss?".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 07:33:59AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote

> The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets -
> there will always be a "use" for 1 more.  That's why we all run Gentoo
> - we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package
> maintainers.

  There's a "server" profile which could be the answer.  I tried using
it for a while.  Unfortunately, it results in an ewarn log message in
/var/log/portage/elog for *EVERY LAST SINGLE BUILD*.  I then changed
over to starting my USE flag with "-*".  If that message could be gotten
rid of, so as not to pollute /var/log/portage/elog, it could be useful
as a server_or_lightweight_desktop profile.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>  There's a "server" profile which could be the answer.

I've never seen that as being a terribly useful profile.  Servers tend
to be very minimal configurations.  Maybe if we ever ripped sshd out
of the default profile we might put it there, but beyond that what
would you run on EVERY server?  If I were to build a server I'd just
stick with the default profile, and then add to it.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Kacper Kowalik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1079 bytes --]

On 05/08/2012 02:01 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>>  There's a "server" profile which could be the answer.
> 
> I've never seen that as being a terribly useful profile.  Servers tend
> to be very minimal configurations.  Maybe if we ever ripped sshd out
> of the default profile we might put it there, but beyond that what
> would you run on EVERY server?  If I were to build a server I'd just
> stick with the default profile, and then add to it.

Hi,
read what Walter written till the very end ;)
Problem is not what to *add* to the default profile, but rather that you
have to *remove* tons of flags from it to have something compact.
As he already mentioned usually USE="-*" is the way to start.

There were plans once among the cluster herd's members to write
minimalistic profile for hpc server/node and ha cluster that would
inherit from a "barebone" server profile. We just never got to it as
demand wasn't that high. Maybe it's time to revisit the problem.

Cheers,
Kacper


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 694 bytes --]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:25:02 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Some other questionable ones:
> > emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open
> 
> We've had this discussion before... The question is not "are people
> likely to want emboss?". The question is "of people who use packages
> that have an emboss use flag, are those people likely to want emboss?".

The question is "why aren't those packages using IUSE="+emboss" instead of
cluttering up the profiles with obscure USE flags?".


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:25:02 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400
>> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Some other questionable ones:
>> > emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open
>>
>> We've had this discussion before... The question is not "are people
>> likely to want emboss?". The question is "of people who use packages
>> that have an emboss use flag, are those people likely to want emboss?".
>
> The question is "why aren't those packages using IUSE="+emboss" instead of
> cluttering up the profiles with obscure USE flags?".

Agreed, IF anybody using that package is likely to want that flag on
any profile.

Package defaults are good for the case when anybody using that package
on any profile is likely to want that flag.

Profile defaults are good for the case when anybody using that profile
is across-the-board likely to want or not want that flag.

In the case of emboss setting it (or not) at the package level would
seem to make sense.  I can't see how having support for some
particular scientific application suite is going to vary depending on
whether the package is installed on a desktop vs server, or with
hardened vs non-hardened.  I could see overriding it on hardened
making sense if it didn't build on that profile.

Rich