On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 18:31 +0200, Nils Freydank wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017, 17:55:22 CEST schrieb Raffaele
> Belardi:
> > After several months of Gnome3 I decided it is too heavy for my old
> > workstation and would like to go back to LXDE. The flow could be:
> > 
> > 1. rebuild kernel with openRC support and install
> > 2. emerge -C gnome networkmanager
> > 3. emerge -C systemd
> > 4. change profile to generic desktop (non-Gnome)
> > 5. emerge -N lxde-meta
> > 6. emerge -N xdm openrc anacron sysklogd sysvinit
> > 7. reboot
> > 
> > I doubt it will be this easy... anything I'm missing, suggestions?
> 
> Hi, I’d run it a bit differently:
> - change profile
> - force-remove gnome (emerge -aC)
> - double checking USE flags and updating @world as usual
> - cleanup (emerge --ask --verbose --clean)

Isn't cleanup better performed by emerge --depclean?

Won't emerge --depclean be confused if I change profile before running
it? I'd expect it to check the USE flags before deciding to remove a
package so if I change profile beforehand it will base decision on
wrong assumptions. But I'm not at all sure about this, does anybody
have an opinion?

> - install services that aren’t already installed as a dep (maybe
> anacron or ntpd/chrony)
> - Adding the services to appropriate runlevels (e.g. rc-update add
> xdm default)
> 
> - If necessary, replacing udev with eudev. I don’t remember if it got
> changed automatically
> a while ago on one of my systems due the switch.
> 
> If you didn’t explicitly removed OpenRC you have it already
> installed, (removal is possible though),
> and sysvinit gets pulled in by OpenRC ;-)
> 
> BTW, I personally like elogind (a standalone "cut off" of systemd-
> logind) and can suggest it
> as a surrogate for consolekit2. Support by the upstream is incredible
> fast.

I'll check this. I confess consolekit is one of those packages that got
installed somehow but I never did any configuration or study about it
(i.e. I don't know why it's there...)

> 
> Have fun :)
> Nils
> > thanks,
> > 
> > raffaele
> 
> 

Reply via email to