Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Friday 12 March 2010 19:39:48 Ben de Groot wrote: On 12 March 2010 10:48, Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org wrote: First of all, I'll delay the commit since I need to write documentation patches, and I won't be able, as I'll leave soon for a conference and will be back on Monday. What exactly needs to be done for documentation? Maybe I can help there. Cheers, KDE guide needs update (I'll do that) and also GNOME and xorg guides, and maybe the handbook (i'm still waiting for a confirmation by the docs team for that). Thanks for the offer -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams blog.tampakrap.gr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:47 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: Even so, if we choose not to implement the split now, there are problems that need addressing in the current situation. The Qt team finds the mysql dependency that was added to the desktop profile three months ago (see bug #291996) unacceptable. How would you propose to solve this without splitting the desktop profile? Probably by solving the issue there. Either not requiring a mysql USE flag in the relevant places, or USE defaulting it on there for now for just that package; or package.use enabled in desktop profile, instead of globally. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 11:48 +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: I found your proposal about mixing profiles awesome, and I am willing to work on this. In fact, I'm going to raise the issue on KDE's meeting this Thursday at 20:00 UTC. Any freedesktop team members will be welcome there. But I'm not going to step up from the current workaround I worked on, as things are not that tragic. I will document and announce everything, and I will be watching forums and IRC for some days to provide support. The only real problem in my opinion would be this, people get confused about useflags and unexpected -- newuse results. (btw I already announced it once in my blog, I will do it again, and we'll also provide a news item, so I doubt this is even a real problem as well). I guess it's a question of how long the other proposal takes implementing. If just a month or two, two migration within that time period doesn't make so much sense. If we really estimate slow progress there, then I guess we can have users deal with the multiple migrations and some months of small benefits from the better profiles. Just this situation with desktop profiles has existed for as long as desktop profile have existed, so waiting a couple months more for the perfect solution (while avoiding multiple migrations) doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I appreciate you intending to take a lead on pushing the other proposal too. I guess I should review the gnome subprofile soon, I assume some of our other guys already did though. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! I suggest reading my comments... Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this thread. The subthread got renamed to more fit its purpose. If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal, but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already working on that? In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo. I argued that it's a bad idea to add yet more profiles, when we could avoid that (while even improving things additionally). But I guess I'll have to bring some direct points why I think implementing the alternative as I described ASAP is better than ever doing this gnome/kde subprofile thing: * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. (Of course the subprofiles could also be added together with a new release, as proposed for the alternative idea) * Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time, possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse triggering, etc) * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite suboptimal for GNOME) * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the alternative better proposal -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Friday 12 March 2010 10:36:57 Mart Raudsepp wrote: On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! I suggest reading my comments... Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this thread. The subthread got renamed to more fit its purpose. If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal, but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already working on that? In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo. I argued that it's a bad idea to add yet more profiles, when we could avoid that (while even improving things additionally). But I guess I'll have to bring some direct points why I think implementing the alternative as I described ASAP is better than ever doing this gnome/kde subprofile thing: * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0 profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons. (Of course the subprofiles could also be added together with a new release, as proposed for the alternative idea) * Adding yet more subprofiles, increasing repoman and pcheck time, possibly confusing users (migration things; changing USE flags in a perceived stable release profile leading to unexpected --newuse triggering, etc) * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite suboptimal for GNOME) * Putting the problem of suboptimal subprofiles handling under the carpet again, greatly reducing the motivation for people to work on the alternative better proposal First of all, I'll delay the commit since I need to write documentation patches, and I won't be able, as I'll leave soon for a conference and will be back on Monday. Maybe I'll find time to prepare something there, but I can't promise. Now, to reply to Mart: I found your proposal about mixing profiles awesome, and I am willing to work on this. In fact, I'm going to raise the issue on KDE's meeting this Thursday at 20:00 UTC. Any freedesktop team members will be welcome there. But I'm not going to step up from the current workaround I worked on, as things are not that tragic. I will document and announce everything, and I will be watching forums and IRC for some days to provide support. The only real problem in my opinion would be this, people get confused about useflags and unexpected -- newuse results. (btw I already announced it once in my blog, I will do it again, and we'll also provide a news item, so I doubt this is even a real problem as well). To sum up: 1) Not oblious to me? / Not bad from my point of view? 2) I doubt users will be conflicted, I'll benchmark repoman and hit back 3) agreed, but i don't see a problem there 4) I'll be the motivator for this :) -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams blog.tampakrap.gr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On 12 March 2010 10:48, Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org wrote: First of all, I'll delay the commit since I need to write documentation patches, and I won't be able, as I'll leave soon for a conference and will be back on Monday. What exactly needs to be done for documentation? Maybe I can help there. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: On 8 March 2010 02:17, Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org wrote: I attached the news item, please review. Meanwhile, I'll create docs patches. Also, I'm CCing hardened as my No.1 question was not answered. Please do. Thanks Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! I suggest reading my comments... -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! I suggest reading my comments... Unless I missed something, you didn't make any comments on this thread. If you mean the thread you started that tangentially took off from this one, about eselect profile improvements: I support that proposal, but it will take some time to get implemented. Is anyone already working on that? In the meantime I see no reason for that to halt or postpone the current desktop profile improvements as prepared by Theo. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On 8 March 2010 02:17, Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org wrote: I attached the news item, please review. Meanwhile, I'll create docs patches. Also, I'm CCing hardened as my No.1 question was not answered. Please do. Thanks Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go! Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Split desktop profile patches news item for review
On Friday 05 March 2010 21:01:09 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. =:^) I could submit a handbook patch too, but I guess the important thing is to make it known to people that are already using the desktop profile. Still, a small reference can be made to handbook, but just a small one, as people that are going to install KDE or GNOME should refer the relevant installation guides. I don't know, Nightmorph has the final word, so I will wait for instructions. BTW, did anyone test it? -- Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap) Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams blog.tampakrap.gr signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
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
