On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Samuli Suominen <[email protected]> wrote: > > For example, gnome-base/gnome-settings-daemon could be p.mask in non-systemd > profiles instructing the users to switch to the systemd profile and point to > the guide you were referring to > As in, the benefit would be informative mask message >
I'm not convinced that is a good idea unless maybe we do something like mix-ins (and I just haven't though through that - there might be issues with that as well). Right now there is no requirement to use the gnome profile in order to use gnome - it is just a convenience. Granted, you could unmask it and stay on base, but unmasking things creates other problems - you can't tie an unmask to a particular reason for something being masked (so if you unmask it you don't get warning before something gets treecleaned, for example). That issue doesn't apply as much to gnome-settings-daemon, but in general I don't think we should go masking things just to get the user to change profiles. In general I'd avoid any requirement to use a non-base profile. Obviously using the right arch/prefix profile makes sense as those are fundamental config changes and they're all minimalist profiles anyway. The issues come when you force users to use non-minimalist profiles where we start forcing packages/decisions the users don't agree with. (And yes, I realize the whole thread is about forcing a decision users don't agree with - but we don't have much choice there.) Rich
