From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670341381F3 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:53:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE2ADE0ACB; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:53:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com (mail-vb0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22BB8E0ABB for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:53:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x14so4909708vbb.23 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=2lt0UdpYDPUbL7XoNa1AHbb8dck6A3w/349rB+1ks24=; b=Y32tCnNIh14I3VYexNrH9VPlInohUVafXmjH541UeW87B8XDlhWkoBnPlTlM62EqYz +nMR7XbeN/6H7/lGvrSdVyqZyc5ziRkqLTYvEdXUZ73pr5/S+F5Me3cHIIOZOVtuB8aJ bMa1xYjHO32pRRbKefeCc9xmO4v+qawuNOhvYfXQw0GZGyi769g/OctPRKtibd4n9AZu zVur7LAr6RxOxTawuqwDbFaUCS0n5dXe9hT6emYI9DBrSiwLrE4AnMZP0oA6OdD2m5A/ sftJc4LKj6qUXNFcPlecqyC7XgYk3t88Bn5GbVnmJcmVJ2CBcz3QsZc6sNmF52Yr/x4A 3g5Q== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.118.8 with SMTP id ki8mr3550664veb.84.1376186028036; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.73.74 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:53:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130810184211.GA1500@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> References: <20130808204701.3b419e58@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130808211103.4069d7ff@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5204403D.8050209@gentoo.org> <52048088.8020400@gentoo.org> <20130809064224.GA8940@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20130809065115.GB8940@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20130809071934.GA11821@linux1> <520499B7.8060808@gentoo.org> <20130810184211.GA1500@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:53:47 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 98sn_G4_Bc1zjb9VDrt33Ii-MjI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [typo] Re: Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a97c5899b404e3a24785 X-Archives-Salt: 32a4de71-a8df-4486-969c-03a2948730ae X-Archives-Hash: 4567df0d4ce2b43f8ad0ca0daf768c47 --089e0122a97c5899b404e3a24785 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, "Steven J. Long" wrote: > It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE profiles. Though I'm > not sure why it's necessary to use a "non-base" profile. We have several > "non-minimalist" profiles already, and the suggestion seems to fit into the > existing framework well: what profiles (and sub-directories thereof) were designed > for, afaict. To clarify, I have no issues with the existing gnome profile installing systemd and such. That just makes sense. Not doing so makes the existing profile less useful I just don't think that you should HAVE to use that profile to use gnome, or that we should have a systemd profile that must be used to run systemd in general. If we go along that route we'll end up with a bazillion combinations of profiles for various packages where it is convenient for maintainers to limit config variability. Every application is easier to support with less variability, and that is why binary distros just take the choices away. If the differences between openrc and systemd were more significant (in terms of the necessary configuration changes to work with them), then mandatory profile use would make sense. Rich --089e0122a97c5899b404e3a24785 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, "Steven J. Lo= ng" <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE prof= iles. Though I'm
> not sure why it's necessary to use a "non-base" profile.= We have several
> "non-minimalist" profiles already, and the suggestion seems = to fit into the
> existing framework well: what profiles (and sub-directories thereof) w= ere designed
> for, afaict.

To clarify, I have no issues with the existing gnome profile= installing systemd and such. That just makes sense. =A0Not doing so makes = the existing profile less useful

I just don't think that you should HAVE to use that prof= ile to use gnome, or that we should have a systemd profile that must be use= d to run systemd in general. If we go along that route we'll end up wit= h a bazillion combinations of profiles for various packages where it is con= venient for maintainers to limit config variability. Every application is e= asier to support with less variability, and that is why binary distros just= take the choices away.

If the differences between openrc and systemd were more significant (in = terms of the necessary configuration changes to work with them), then manda= tory profile use would make sense.

Rich

--089e0122a97c5899b404e3a24785--