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 1NncmN-0006S0-3s for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:01:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 038E2E0B70; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:01:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC68E0B42 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A6D1B4043 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:01:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 495ozsivVrsG for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D35A1B400C for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:01:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nncm2-0005lK-9l for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:01:22 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:01:22 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:01:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org connect(): Connection refused From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches & news item for review Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201003041652.56521.tampakrap@gentoo.org> <20100305002835.7a9518b1@angelstorm> <201003051546.53427.tampakrap@gentoo.org> <20100305175937.GA5763@Zeerak.Fullrate> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 37285a15-e4a0-495d-b3cd-d47274b9ba5d X-Archives-Hash: 5e36face7c76e4206260448e22cf37eb Zeerak Mustafa Waseem posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:59:39 +0100 as excerpted: > How about the Handbook? As far as I remember you're asked to choose a > profile :-) I can file a bug it needs to be done :-) Just let me know That's part 1 (installing), chapter 6 (base system), section 6.b.=20 (portage), heading "Choosing the right profile". The handbook (at least the amd64 handbook I checked, presumably they're=20 pretty much the same in this regard) now says to use eselect profile, so=20 as long as it's listing the correct choices, the examples and details=20 don't matter quite so much. However, the examples/details do mention=20 desktop and server profiles (plus no-multilib for amd64) as alternates to= =20 the generic arch profile, so they /could/ be changed to additionally=20 mention kde and gnome. But with eselect profile doing the heavy lifting=20 already, I'd not call it critical. But be sure that eselect is getting the correct listing... for all archs.= =20 =3D:^) --=20 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