Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:09:29AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote > On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes > wrote: > > > If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with > > > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 07:40:56PM -0500, James Cloos wrote: > > This question only matters if you expect there to be non-desktops where > > there are packages installed that IUSE dri. > > I'd note that there is no correlation between the use of the "desktop" > profiles and the use of an X11 or wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

> This question only matters if you expect there to be non-desktops where > there are packages installed that IUSE dri. I'd note that there is no correlation between the use of the "desktop" profiles and the use of an X11 or wayland server on any given box. The (gui) world is much more than gnome

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

2013/1/19 William Hubbs > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:07:42AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 18/01/13 09:54 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:33:13AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGN

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

2013/1/19 Michał Górny > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > > > Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages > > in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a lot further > > in modularization, so we expect the number of packages to gr

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

2013/1/19 Michael Weber > > But please don't double the qt. > > yay for lib-cute/qt-core

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On Sat, 2013-01-19 at 21:04 +, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 03:53:25PM -0500, Philip Webb wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > > > I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. > > > I haven't printed anything from my personal PC or laptop

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 03:53:25PM -0500, Philip Webb wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > > I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. > > I haven't printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. > > As a user, I'ld say this wb a very unpopular move wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

130119 Ben de Groot wrote: > On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? > These are libraries and applications > that are used by developers of end-user applications. They are also encountered by users when updating K

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. > I haven't printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. As a user, I'ld say this wb a very unpopular move with some of us. I rarely use my 2nd-hand 1995 printer, but sometimes it

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On Jan 19, 2013 5:19 PM, "Michał Górny" wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > > > Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages > > in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a lot further > > in modularization, so we expect the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a >> hyphen for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up. >> qt-core just doesn't make sense if it applies to more tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 19/01/13 05:56 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > > And if you really must, is emerge qt/gui so much more difficult > than emerge qt-gui? > ..no, but having to specify media-libs/phonon now because qt/phonon conflicts (just one of probably many example

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 19/01/13 05:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > Actually, that is what I would expect from the more "basic" > oriented ones like Arch and Debian. Printer support should be an > optional add-on, not part of the basic install. Maybe I'm too > idealistic...

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 19/01/13 05:33 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot > wrote: >> I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. I haven't >> printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. And I'm >> sure I'm not the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Chromium system ffmpeg

On 1/15/13 4:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:34:42 -0800 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >> I'm trying to make Chromium be more compatible with more versions of >> ffmpeg: >> >> (although no

Re: [gentoo-dev] call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:07:42AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 18/01/13 09:54 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:33:13AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >>

[gentoo-dev] [review] adding first stable masks to the new profiles

Hello, We -- the Python team -- would like to add the first masks to the new profiles. As a test target, I have chosen the python_targets_pypy1_9 flag. I have prepared and committed the necessary changes to my CVS checkout [1]. I would appreciate if you could review them and tell me if they are d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/19/2013 12:05 PM, Duncan wrote: > Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:47:58 +0800 as excerpted: > >> On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot >>> wrote: People who do have

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:57:16 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > Presently we already have a good number of split qt-* library packages > in x11-libs. With the arrival of Qt5 upstream has gone a lot further > in modularization, so we expect the number of packages to grow much > more. We, the Gentoo Qt te

[gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:47:58 +0800 as excerpted: > On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot >> wrote: >>> >>> People who do have printers can always enable [USE=cups] themselves. >>> >> Unless we plan on adding yet another

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new "qt" category

Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:14:48 +0800 as excerpted: > On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about >> it? > > These are libraries and applications that are used by developers of > end-user applications. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 01/19/2013 03:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? > > These are libraries and applications that are used by developers of > end-user applications. And so is vim, which is used as

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 19 January 2013 21:46, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? These are libraries and applications that are used by developers of end-user applications. If there is too much opposition to a simple "qt" category (at least there seems to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Maybe lib-qt ? dev-qt sounds confusing to me too, what's "dev" about it? I was thinking about that. A lib-misc, lib-x11, lib-qt, and so on organization actually makes more sense to me than what we're doing with libs in general right now. B

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 01/19/2013 09:39 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a hyphen >> for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up. qt-core >> just doesn't make sense if it applies to more

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Maybe x11-qt, or dev-qt, or just qt, or qt-qt if we must have a hyphen > for its own sake and we're just making senseless stuff up. qt-core > just doesn't make sense if it applies to more than just qt-core. I actually love x11-qt as an optio

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Some of us, including me, are also wondering why a separate category > is needed — while you might be over the median, it doesn't mean it's > that much more compelling — indeed my feeling is that it would be an > useless small category,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > The thing is you would practically never have to do this. Users > install apps that have a number of qt modules as dependencies. These > qt modules in turn cannot be updated individually (unless there is an > ebuild revision bump), but will b

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 17 January 2013 22:45, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > How many packages are we talking about? Especially if you don't want qwt > to join there, I assume we're way below 50? If so I would vote nay to > any new category at all, to be honest. Roughly 40 is the current estimate. This is above the med

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new "qt" category

On 19 January 2013 03:22, Christoph Junghans wrote: > 2013/1/17 Ben de Groot : >> After some initial bikeshedding we came to the conclusion that naming >> the category simply "qt" is the most elegant solution. We will then >> also be dropping the qt- prefix in package names. This means >> x11-libs

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't >> see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a >> minimal profile, and that includes the simple

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. I haven't printed > anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. And I'm sure I'm not > the only one. Won't repeat my previous email, but this is the kind of situation where a "popularity

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > > People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't > see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a > minimal profile, and that includes the simple desktop profile. The kde > and gnome profiles are ex

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

On 19 January 2013 08:01, Christopher Head wrote: > I understand that enabling flags only affects packages if they’re > installed. I’m just saying that, in my opinion, sane-but-minimal should > have CUPS disabled because there are plenty of computers that would > want LibreOffice and/or Chromium i

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

On 19 January 2013 04:49, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > During the server profile discussion, it became clear that we could clean up > the base profiles a bit. This is unrelated to the profile versions, as the > change would affect all versions (well, at least without bigger changes). > > What I s