From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nq75Z-0001uO-Tz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:47:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B3B5E0BD5; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f210.google.com (mail-fx0-f210.google.com [209.85.220.210]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE15FE0BAA for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:47:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so200758fxm.26 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=QzCgPXKPK8yTahyoM+OHUfDIDcFs4QAbKYc6z5uW2io=; b=UX0rYUDhdQ6TYkQYmdS2VjQy9G8k8mLfgcAPJl2tP3RBed8PxlEmQXSZjzP01v3z3G rQItpVkejMSAfi+IlZZxxH/T1V4/3nsz4eQlrOVISsyoW1rZ5+4VkHPcYluDnldzh3zj LFq2dVo2LfWUgbGeIukZHpP46Zehu989YjlEg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Pqoj9eKZ0gCIW/woT6HEoXTj1kbBXgLvtEz+WMa41kiioomhYYVEZLjWThioLOd1iT fqCWLhElX4+Iiy73drIizjMwBoeqpkwr0vI4P6EkKQHitRahfkFd1tOBd+kFWlYVkFFK etDutsASdYTKQP9AvmLMLjwgzVXhkkmcFQYQQ= 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 Sender: yngwin.gentoo@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.127.8 with SMTP id e8mr3004103mun.39.1268408834042; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1268383017.6834.14.camel@localhost> References: <201003041652.56521.tampakrap@gentoo.org> <201003080318.02585.tampakrap@gentoo.org> <1268338853.29433.0.camel@localhost> <1268383017.6834.14.camel@localhost> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:47:13 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 96988b1bd1d94eac Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches & news item for review From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: bcecd36a-3a38-4d85-a497-1a4602f9399c X-Archives-Hash: 1b47035b8c7569433525c95ea45af491 On 12 March 2010 09:36, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 > profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. While I agree with you in principle, this has not been Gentoo practice. The profiles have already been modified, multiple times, since the release. So either we need to revert those changes and start a new profile set (for an upcoming release or whatever), or we need to solve problems in the current profiles. I would support a new policy of not changing the release profiles once they have been officially released, and start working on a new "current" set of profiles immediately after release (or as soon as the need for change comes up). So we would in effect have stable and testing profiles, mirroring our ebuild policy. > * Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time, > possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a > perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse > triggering, etc) There are good reasons for these new subprofiles, and I'm sure our tools can handle them. Documentation and a news item about the changes should help prevent confusion among users. > * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile > (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite > suboptimal for GNOME) Either solution is suboptimal, so it is very much about weighing pros and cons. In my opinion the split desktop profiles are an improvement over the current situation. And it will be even better when your plan for eselect profile improvements gets implemented. > * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the > carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the > alternative better proposal I think it's rather the other way around: having split gnome and kde subprofiles makes it all the more apparent that the current handling of profiles is suboptimal. It will be a bigger motivation for change. I'm afraid that sweeping the problem of a suboptimal unified desktop profile under the carpet again by not implementing the split now will reduce motivation again for people to work on your proposal. Even so, if we choose not to implement the split now, there are problems that need addressing in the current situation. The Qt team finds the mysql dependency that was added to the desktop profile three months ago (see bug #291996) unacceptable. How would you propose to solve this without splitting the desktop profile? Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) ______________________________________________________