On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > >> Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! > > > > I suggest reading my comments... > > Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this > thread.
The subthread got renamed to more fit its purpose. > If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this > one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal, > but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already > working on that? > > In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the > current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo. I argued that it's a bad idea to add yet more profiles, when we could avoid that (while even improving things additionally). But I guess I'll have to bring some direct points why I think implementing the alternative as I described ASAP is better than ever doing this gnome/kde subprofile thing: * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. (Of course the subprofiles could also be added together with a new release, as proposed for the alternative idea) * 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) * 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) * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the alternative better proposal -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
