On Aug 10, 2013 2:41 PM, "Steven J. Long" <[email protected]> wrote: > It's also easier for developers to handle, similar to the KDE profiles. Though I'm > not sure why it's necessary to use a "non-base" profile. We have several > "non-minimalist" profiles already, and the suggestion seems to fit into the > existing framework well: what profiles (and sub-directories thereof) were designed > for, afaict.
To clarify, I have no issues with the existing gnome profile installing systemd and such. That just makes sense. Not doing so makes the existing profile less useful I just don't think that you should HAVE to use that profile to use gnome, or that we should have a systemd profile that must be used to run systemd in general. If we go along that route we'll end up with a bazillion combinations of profiles for various packages where it is convenient for maintainers to limit config variability. Every application is easier to support with less variability, and that is why binary distros just take the choices away. If the differences between openrc and systemd were more significant (in terms of the necessary configuration changes to work with them), then mandatory profile use would make sense. Rich
