[gentoo-dev] User defined license groups
Hey guys, I ran with ACCEPT_LICENSE=* for a while and a few days ago I decided to look into the licenses the programs I'm using need and read up on them, then add them manually. I then remembered the license groups and proceeded to specify my own license group in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups, first emerge -uDN @world worked great, all downgrades from license masking were dropped. But then I sync'ed my tree, and now my own group is gone. So I was wondering if there is another place to specify license groups? If not, would I go to the bugzilla and file a bug for a feature request or is there another way to go about it? -- Best Regards Zeerak Waseem
[gentoo-dev] Participation at FOSDEM?
Hey guys, Just wondering if Gentoo will be represented at FOSDEM this year? -- Zeerak Waseem
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy regarding the inactive members
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 04:04:57PM +0200, Matti Bickel wrote: /me puts on his asbestos underwear Markos Chandras wrote: So the attendance to council meetings is enough to prove that a member is active? 0_o Yes. Anything else is just too hard to measure, imo. If you notice a council member acting w/o knowing what the heck is going on, then vote him down next election. place on the mailing list. Because I really doubt that *all* council members are reading the mailing list in daily basis so they get to know everything that is going on to Gentoo. This is impossible. Council should follow -council and debate points pushed onto their agenda via -dev. At least that's my understanding. But isn't it the councils purpose to lead gentoo? I agree it's damn hard to measure. A thing that could be done is to appoint one person to speak on behalf of the council and to follow -dev. The entire Python-3 stabilization could have used a figure to say that it was to be stabilized or not and state why and what should (and would) be done to prevent the same situation in the future. Imo Gentoo sorely needs a leader. Someone to bring all of these various bodies of gentoo to work together. 2) Fails to accomplish his role by supervising the Gentoo projects. This isn't even in their domain. I would complain *loud* about any council member interfering with projects unless it's an inter-project issue. The council is meant for arbitration and vision, not for commanding devs. Well, the way I understand it, the council is elected to lead Gentoo. By leading they have to either delegate to someone to supervise Gentoo projects or do it themselves. It isn't supervision in a Why is developer X not doing anything but rather as This project hasn't moved forward for X months, let's get in touch and hear what's going on and what can be done about and whether or not anything should be done. Gentoo consists of the projects it works on (and has worked on), leading Gentoo must also mean leading the projects. Rather than relying on the council for whatever leadership you want, please just DO something that scratches YOUR itch. I'm aware our current technical/social infrastructure is not up to par on handling large scale contributions by hundreds of users/non-devs. I realize there's this impression that every time you have an idea there's a mob of people stoning your idea to death. I have however observed that the more mature (read: the more implemented code) your idea is, the smaller the stones. And if your idea is good enough, others might use their stones for building instead of mud-slinging. But if the council is elected to lead Gentoo, then they are the ones to look at when there is a seeming lack of leadership. I do agree that doing something yourself will always be the first step, but there is no way every developer can keep track of everything that's going on. It seems to me that the need for Gentoo at the moment is, someone who can keep track of the ongoings of Gentoo and make the necessary decisions to further this distribution. A council is a very good idea, but it is a slowly moving process and there needs to be an intermediate person that can do the day to day decisions, and this person would of course take the most important issues (along with anything the individual developers think should be taken care of) to the council for the council to vote on. I utterly fail to see why there should be any rock throwing. It should not be hard to voice your concerns about an idea without coming off as hostile. Rather than seeing a problem with the idea, one should look for solutions. And on that note I fail to see why flaming occurs, this is a workplace and you don't get into arguments (heated debates yes but not arguments) with your other employers, do you? And even if it is a volountary workplace and it's on the internet, the same courtesy should be shown. I know all of you already know this, but if there's something you think might not be understood in the manner you intend in real life, then it definately won't be understood in the manner you intend on the internet. And there's something good about that this is on the internet. If you feel like you're starting to get agitated, take a breather, no one will know any better, other than (hopefully) your responce will be that much more relaxed. As an endnote I should say that I know you're all doing your best here, so keep it up! -- Zeerak Waseem pgpkCTR8LZgNi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:02:40PM +0100, George Prowse wrote: On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote: On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaineguy.fonta...@videotron.qc.ca wrote: There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of the project. Cheers, I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages. The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going to want how to set up FreeDOOM on it. Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users could (would and should) create articles on how to get some application running or how to get some setting working, and the developers will have their own section, so to speak, where they can collaborate on various projects where a wiki would be an asset. It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and say If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki. I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, correct me :-) -- Zeerak Waseem pgpO9ZFxTQRF1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 03:00:10PM +0200, Ben de Groot wrote: On 6 April 2010 07:16, Stuart Longland redhat...@gentoo.org wrote: How are you off for moderators? I don't have a lot of time to sit around waiting for stuff to compile these days (which is why I've been very inactive on the MIPS and Mozilla fronts) but I could look help out with the moderation. It looks like we're getting together a nice team, but we sure could use a little more help! At this point, we're still debating and testing, so there isn't anything to moderate yet. But soon we will have. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Qt project lead developer Gentoo Wiki project lead I have some experience with testing, so if you need a hand just drop a line :-) -- Zeerak Waseem pgpmil1wxNJch.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] recruitment process
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 04:07:01PM +, Jon Portnoy wrote: On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 08:50:49AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: Just replying randomly. On 05.04.2010 04:33, Tobias Heinlein wrote: I think this is a good starting point to get rid of the some important questions are too hard to answer dilemma that can be implemented relatively fast. On top of that I like Sebastian's idea to order the quizzes by difficulty -- this means just ordering by the categories I just mentioned would be sufficient: 1 first, then 2, then 3. I am not against this idea but frankly, I do not understand what is so demotivating about the ebuild quiz. If you get demotivated because of a single exam, perhaps the problem is with the motivation and not with the exam itself. I took the published quiz just for the fun of it and to see where I missed. It is not that long. Agreed... I've been following this discussion with mixed feelings. When we originally began using the quiz system the idea was simply to try to force new developers to RTFM -- and I was not such a fan of the entire concept (as I recall, the quizzes were a suggestion from Daniel). As it turns out, the quiz system has repeatedly proven itself useful in another way: developers who whine/bitch/moan and are hesitant to even attempt to complete the quizzes often turn out to be bitchy, unmotivated, or unpleasant developers. I don't want to name any names, but I've seen this often. IMO, those boring too much like high school quizzes serve one extremely valuable function: finding out up front who's a team player (or at least willing to do something mildly unpleasant for the Greater Good) If that's causing potential devs to drop out... perhaps the system is working as it should? :) There should be a process of weeding out developers that bitch and/or whine, but if most of the teams are understaffed then there has to be done something about it. The way I see it there are two options: a) Scale down the size of the operation, reduce packages offered, and if there are more packages wanted, let the users maintain them. b) Look at an effective way of making the process of become a developer (and being a developer for that matter) more attractive. The first option could be somewhat simple, we already have overlays so those could simply be used. The second option (which would be the best IMO) is a fair bit harder. The first thing that needs to be done is find out why people don't want to become developers. I've heard a few users mention the quiz, but it seems that the thing keeping most people away from becoming developers are all the flame wars that have occured, and the fact that it (to us users) seems like the council isn't doing much of anything about it. So while I believe that improving (and/or updating) the recruitment process is important, I think there would be more success if it seemed like a nice place to be a part of, and that bad behaviour is dealt with. -- Zeerak Waseem pgpEY8rDY73LF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:15:21PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: On Monday 05 April 2010 21:12:49 Ben de Groot wrote: After the mostly positive feedback on the recent wiki discussion, we have now gone ahead, formed a preliminary team consisting of both users and developers, and put up a project page [1]. All constructive feedback on this new project is welcome. Thank you for all your hard effort +1 It's great to see that this project is starting :-) We'd also like to invite any users and developers, who are willing to [..] - moderation I am willing to join the moderation userspace 1: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/wiki/ Cheers, -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org If someone could give me a description of what internal organization of the wiki intails I might be willing to help out with it (being that it's something I actually know about ;) ) otherwise I'd be more than willing to help out with moderation. -- Zeerak Waseem pgpSiWMnRSmU1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo a Phoenix?
esOn Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: On 04/03/2010 06:19 AM, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: I really think that the Gentoo recruitment process needs improvement. Right now it seems like a LOT of effort is required both to become a Gentoo dev and to help somebody become a Gentoo dev. That means we have great people, but not many of them. I think the problem is that our recruitment process uses the ability to answer complex technical and organizational questions as a way to assess maturity. I think that maturity is far more important than technical skill in a distro - a mature person will recognize their own limitations and exercise due diligence when stepping outside of them. Instead of playing 20 questions and going back and forth with recruits, maybe a better approach would be to cut down the questions dramatically (or more clearly put their answers in the documentation), and then use other approaches like references and interviews. A new recruit might be given the names of 5 devs that they will need to interview with for 30-60 minutes by phone or IRC (preference on phone), and they will need to submit references, who will be contacted. When we hire people at work we don't play trivial pursuit with them, we use an interview to get a feel for what they're like and how they handle situations, and we screen resumes and references to determine experience. I'm sure any of the professional linux distros would work in the same way, but perhaps somebody should ask around and see how it is done elsewhere. I'm not exactly sure how you'd want the references to work, I mean, as in prior jobs/projects worked on? I know that I'd like to help out with development, but as it stands I don't think I have the necessary skills (various programming language etc), so that is something I'm working on. As a consequence I naturally don't have any references (and might not by the time I feel ready) but that wouldn't necessarily mean that I'm not qualified to be working as a dev. Also one could imagine that a number of other people without references, but the necessary qualifications might think To hell with this, I'll just put my effots somewhere else. Another thing, you write that phone is preferred but I know that I act relaxed in text with new people and as myself. Whereas on the phone I hold back a bit, and don't really act myself. So perhaps the preference should be the manner in which the one being interviewed is more comfortable with and will act more naturally. Anyway these are just my 2 cents. -- Zeerak Waseem pgp95WvDeen2m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:13:19PM +0100, AllenJB wrote: The unofficial wiki may have been created because there wasn't an official one, but that doesn't mean it's any less of a community in its own right. Starting the official wiki by effectively ripping off others work and attempting to destroy existing user communities is NOT the right way to go about things, in my opinion (and losing the editing history of those articles in the process). You should first try to start your wiki/community and make it a community in its own right, rather than trying to steal/destroy/rip off existing communities. My personal goal is to continue to maintain an existing community full of useful documentation, already concentrated in one place. The unofficial wiki avoids duplication by pointing to existing documentation where ever possible. The search problem is already dealt with by Google, so that's no reason to go about ripping off other peoples work. With your aims in mind, I don't see the point in duplicating existing material, creating TWO places you have to check to see what's been updated. If an official wiki starts up and becomes a major documentation centre for user contributions, then I may consider moving my articles over, but until that time I currently intend to maintain them in place, with their complete history in tact. AllenJB You're absolutely right, it is a seperate community, and reading your replies I can't help but think Is the url really that important?. After all regardless of where the articles that you've written, you still would be the writer. You could still take part in the various discussions that may arise on the articles. The way I see it is that when the official wiki comes up, it will only be a question of time before the pages covered in the unofficial wiki are covered in the official one, particularly if it'll be mainly user-driven and people stop thinking about using the unofficial wiki, as there is a wiki and the answer isn't there. So when they find the answer, they add it. Personally I'd prefer to be part of the change rather than resisting it. I can understand reluctance to join a project you aren't certain will succeed, though. As another note, the license of gentoo-wiki doesn't stop anyone from copying but is incompatible with the license on the docs (was mentioned in a thread recently) so what is in gentoo-wiki won't be copied, but at best/worst rewritten. As an endnote, none of the above is meant as provocative or offensive, so in case it does offend; you have my apologies (it seems like a touchy subject for you so I thought I'd make it clear :-) ) -- Zeerak Waseem pgppEtO006ig3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:21:13PM +0100, AllenJB wrote: The way I see it, the official wiki has to earn my respect as a project. The unofficial wiki already has already been through this process. It's no different whether I'm trying a new piece of software or a new distro. It's not the URL that bothers me. I will, as I have said, quite happily move the articles I've written over, relicensing what I can if necessary, if/when I believe that the community would benefit. My problem is with the attitude of let's start the official wiki by taking the content of the unofficial wiki, regardless of the wishes of the active contributors of those articles. Ah yeah, I should have been more specific with what I meant. What I wanted to ask (but looking back on my mail, not what I did ask) is, what is to stop the community at the unofficial wiki to migrate to the new wiki early in the project? I don't know what you require for the new wiki to be able to gain your respect, but I imagine (wild guessing based on what it would take for it to gain my respect) that one thing is that it has quality articles, I also assume that another is activity. But in that regard, what you and the rest of the community have brought to gentoo-wiki would be a wonderful place to start for the official wiki. I don't mean your articles, well your articles as well but not necessarily the article, I primarily mean a community well adjusted to working with a gentoo-specific wiki. You guys have provided some good articles and having your contribution (in form of willingness to work with the new wiki) would be a great asset, in my opinion anyway. I can understand that you have a problem with it if the first step is taking your work, but what if you were one of the first steps. I mean a successful wiki would be a wiki with an active usergroup (the unofficial one has that), good accurate articles (the unofficial wiki has that as well), and a decent rate of visitors (the articles are useful and relevant) and again, the unofficial wiki has that. You basically have what is necessary for gentoo to grow in this aspect. So the question ends up being, why wait for someone else to prove to you what you can prove to others? (And indeed have proven to others.) If your requirements for the official wiki to gain your respect are the same as mine, then why not help make sure that it meets those requirements? Yes, the license may allow you to do this, and legally you might be able to do so under the license. But the legal license and ethics/morals involved in such action are different things. As I see it, the purpose of licensing my articles under an open license is to allow them to be contributed to and read without issues in the eventuality that the current wiki is lost for any reason (tho this is highly unlikely to happen again in the forseeable future as I and others now actively backup the content of the wiki, and the server maintainer has much better full backups in place) or the event that I am hit by a bus. But in the end you have no control over who copies it. I mean hell, I could start a blog/wiki/whatever else and copy the contents of the unofficial wiki over. And in the end you can't (and by my estimate shouldn't) complain as you knew the terms when you entered, and if not you could stop any time you realized the terms. Whether or not they're contributed to another place than where you put them up, is what you agreed to. I don't see any moral or ethical issues in this. I can understand why it might upset you, but in the end when you release something under a license that allows copying and editing it must be a situation you're prepared for. I do however see why you mgiht find it distasteful. If those who wish to run an official wiki can see no sensible starting point other than copying the content of the unofficial wiki, then I would bring into question what the point of an official wiki would be, and why should the Gentoo developers psend time and resources on duplicating the efforts of the community when there is a huge long list of other things they could do that would provide services to the community that are not already catered for. AllenJB +1 I completely agree with you, there is one reason as I can see it though. As it is at the moment there isn't a recommendation to help out with the unofficial wiki, if it became (part of) the official wiki such a recommendation would be put forth (I imagine). But then, a recommendation could be put forth now :-) But other than that, I completely agree with you. -- Zeerak Waseem pgprqdGj6cxNP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of informing users. We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. Not so cheerful, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer Another user here. Couldn't this issue with the news item be resolved by wording it differently? The way I've understood the python maintainers is that they don't want the news item to recommend masking it. So couldn't a compromise be phrasing along the lines of ... it is safe to mask python-3* at the moment... and perhaps also ... a news item will be released when python-3* will become necessary. To be honest I don't think the last bit is quite as relevant if people do pay heed to the fact that python-3* can be masked without any consequence. Can all parties agree to something of this sort? -- Zeerak Waseem pgphFNYVk8q45.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:08:14PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:11:47 -0500 Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org wrote: Has QA given their blessing to this? Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized. The stable tree should all Just Work together. Stabilizing python-3 at this point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it. Sure, gcc works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree. I don't think it's the same. This is like saying we can't stabilize qt-4 because half the tree is (was) qt-3. These packages are likely never going to work with the newer version, that's why it's slotted and now we have an admittedly impressive framework for making sure python-2 programs get python-2 and python-3 get python-3. Another example from my camp is wxGTK. Half the stuff in the tree (even now) doesn't work with 2.8, so we introduced a system where packages would get the version they needed, while users could use whatever version they wanted independent of portage. 2.8 has been stable for over 3 years now. I've been messing with the new python stuff this past week and I'm sold. If you recall I was one of the people completely against the idea last time this topic came up. I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to our stable users. If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly. A stable user who doesn't want python 3 installed shouldn't have it forced on them. If something is pulling in python-3 then that package needs to have its dependencies fixed. IIRC Portage isn't greedy wrt. SLOTs like it was before (unless you use @installed) so it shouldn't be pulled in by anything that doesn't require it. Are we really saying that no python-3-based package can go into stable until 90% of the tree is python-3? That's like, 5 years from now, if ever. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 I think that is being said is, due to python 3 being unnecessary for majority of users, due to a small number of applications actually using it, it should be in ~arch. Of course an application that depends on python 3, but is entirely stable should not be marked testing (to my reckoning at least). I think the best way to go about it is to set python-3 in ~arch. As it has been said, should a user need python 3 they most likely know what they're doing and keywording it shouldn't be a problem. So my vote goes towards stabilizing the applications that depend on python three, in their due time, and keeping python-3 keyworded. -- Zeerak Waseem pgpeDiZalgPPO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:46:50PM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: On Friday 05 March 2010 14:57:32 Ben de Groot wrote: On 5 March 2010 09:28, Joshua Saddler nightmo...@gentoo.org wrote: Feel free to submit some documentation patches now that all our docs are #...@ed. Thanks. No need for the drama, my friend. A couple of more choices in profiles does not fuck up all our docs. Some clarification will need to be added to docs that refer to the desktop profile, yes. That's a good point. Let's start identifying which docs need updating. Cheers, I maintain the KDE docs, so I'll update them. I'll also send a doc patch for the gnome and xorg docs. I already blogged about it, and will write the news item. I suppose those are more than enough. Thanks for pointing that out -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams blog.tampakrap.gr 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 -- Zeerak Waseem pgptqnvLfw0uA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:01:09PM +, Duncan wrote: 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. (portage), heading Choosing the right profile. The handbook (at least the amd64 handbook I checked, presumably they're pretty much the same in this regard) now says to use eselect profile, so as long as it's listing the correct choices, the examples and details don't matter quite so much. However, the examples/details do mention desktop and server profiles (plus no-multilib for amd64) as alternates to the generic arch profile, so they /could/ be changed to additionally mention kde and gnome. But with eselect profile doing the heavy lifting already, I'd not call it critical. But be sure that eselect is getting the correct listing... for all archs. =:^) -- 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 Agreed, I wouldn't call it a critical thing to edit, however having heard With so many people confused about profiles as it is, in regards both to the forums and the irc channels, I'd say it should be a priority to make a mention of it. Perhaps something akin to There are KDE and Gnome specific profiles geared towards each of these desktop environment, should you use another lighter environment the base profile should contain all necessary settings. :-) -- Zeerak Waseem pgpohfbPlLAxh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Remove cups from default profile to solve circular deps
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:19:05PM -0600, Dale wrote: chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: Richard Freemanri...@gentoo.org writes: I think that is separate from the circular dependency issue. As long as we have an unresolved circular dependency I think cups should be off the list. However, I'd be the first to agree that this is a short-term solution. The problem is that we only have two long-term solutions so far: 1. A smarter package manager that can work through these dependencies automatically. 2. Splitting packages like poppler that have these issues. Is there not a third, maybe obvious, solution to circular dependencies on initial install? 3. Include one or both of the packages in the stage tarball. I'm not a dev but what else uses poppler or other packages that would be added? Also, this would affect server profiles. Last I checked, server, desktop or any other profile starts from the same tarball. It's a idea but would it be a good one? I don't know the answer to that question. Is this a Gentoo thing or is this caused by upstream? I only use Gentoo so maybe it affects other distros as well. Dale :-) :-) Well the merge of the poppler packages seems to have been made in upstream. So it should affect other distros as well. Perhaps not binary distros, though. For now I don't see any other way to solve it other than removing the use flag, and perhaps adding a warning in the handbook about this circular dep. the idea about using a tarball is good enough, the problem with that (as I see it) is what Dale also points out. Desktop and server profiles start from the same tarball, so in order to do this effectively (I seem to remember people coming to an agreement that a server profile wouldn't need cups), there'd have to be a tarball for desktops and one for servers. I quite like the idea of a unified tarball, and going from there, choosing the right profile etc. As opposed to choosing the right tarball, then choosing the right profile that fits with that tarball. To me it seems to complicate matters where there's no need. And also, we would like for portage to continue to grow, and being able to resolve circular dependencies automatically, doesn't seem like a bad goal. :-) -- Zeerak Waseem pgpe6E98z7YDh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Remove cups from default profile to solve circular deps
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:08:07PM -0800, Joshua Saddler wrote: On 3 March 2010 19:45, Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't believe we should selectively cripple one GUI toolkit with not having proper printing support out of the box on a desktop profile, while others do, just because maintainers are lazy. It is not something that is necessary for running a desktop system. Your logic is very thin here. By that same line of reasoning, neither are the gtk or qt flags, since you don't need 'em if you're building, say, a *box desktop. Printing is something I'd argue is part of a desktop environment. It's very much a graphical activity, and that's what a desktop is. We've had the Printing Guide in our Desktop Documentation Resources section for years for that very reason. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/?catid=desktop Isn't the split of the desktop profile, into KDE and gnome profiles, whilst leaving a base Desktop profile, exactly meant for the purpose that if you're not building KDE/Gnome, then you don't need to set the qt flags, unless some application needs it, or you find that you'd prefer to have them set system-wide? -- Zeerak Waseem pgpEJ2836hG1f.pgp Description: PGP signature
