El dom, 06-05-2012 a las 07:33 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > I don't think even heavyweight DE/WM usually needs ldap... > > > > Tend to agree. I don't think we want to create a new profile every > time we want to change one of the flags. > > Some other questionable ones: > emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite > firefox - probably OK for what it does now, but not everybody uses it > xulrunner - not even used now > > There will always be some level of variation if you are looking at > single flags. What matters isn't coming up with profiles that exactly > match all of our users, but rather ones that are good for 80+% of > them. > > As far as ldap goes, if we wanted an "enterprise desktop" profile that > might be a good fit for such a configuration. I agree that -ldap > isn't really a lightweight desktop so much as a normal one. If you > really wanted "lightweight" then you'd probably not be running desktop > at all, or the regular desktop vs kde/gnome.
Maybe "desktop" should be more lightweight oriented and for people (like me) wanting more, use gnome/kde instead (or create xfce/lxde... if they need other flags...) > > The bottom line is that we don't need 47 different profile targets - > there will always be a "use" for 1 more. That's why we all run Gentoo > - we aren't bound by the decisions made for us by the package > maintainers. > > Rich > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
