On Friday 05 March 2010 07:57:32 Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 5 March 2010 09:28, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Feel free to submit some documentation patches now that all our docs are
> > #$!@ed. Thanks.
>
> No need for the drama, my friend. A couple of more choices in
> profiles does not fuck up all our docs. Some clarification will need
> to be added to docs that refer to the desktop profile, yes. That's
> a good point. Let's start identifying which docs need updating.

i dont think he's throwing up drama. he's just posting a friendly reminder
that any documents referencing profiles are out of date.
-mike

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:01:09PM +0000, 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

On Thursday 04 March 2010 16:52:50 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Hello
> I have managed to split the desktop profile to gnome and kde submenus. The
> result can be found in kde-crazy overlay (not in layman) [1]
> I splitted every desktop/ folder i found. The following issues raised
> though: 1) I didn't touch the hardened and selinux directories although
> they do contain a desktop folder. Should I proceed in those or not?
> 2) Some mips/ subdirs don't point to targets/, so I guess the split went to
> /dev/null. So I asked ssuominen who suggested to skip the mips directories,
> and I reverted. (Edit: ssuominen just committed changes in mips profiles in
> tree).
> 3) There were no desktop dirs for bsd/prefix etc.
> 4) Also take a look at how I splitted the USE flags (with ssuominen's and
> yngwin's suggestions) and propose your corrections plz. For example, I
> don't really like the firefox flag in kde, and I'd suggest a -firefox
> (ugly, I know) in kde's make.defaults
>
> Please Please Please Please Please TEST / REVIEW (especially the arch teams
> plz)
>
> I'll give three days max for the suggestions here etc, and then I'll
> proceed in creating the news item. So I guess it will be committed in a
> week max. Thanks
>
> [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde-crazy.git;a=summary

(I doubt that anyone tested it)

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

PS. Please test it
--
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams
blog.tampakrap.gr
Title: New desktop subprofiles for GNOME and KDE
Author: Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2010-03-08
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/arm/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/hppa/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/ia64/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/m68k/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/powerpc/ppc32/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/powerpc/ppc64/10.0/32bit-userland/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/powerpc/ppc64/10.0/64bit-userland/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/powerpc/ppc64/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sh/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sparc/10.0/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sparc/experimental/multilib/desktop
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop

There are two new subprofiles under desktop, one for GNOME and one for
KDE. Users that have only one of those two DEs may choose the according
subprofile. Users of other DEs or WMs may stick to the desktop profile.

Attention: KDE or GNOME specific USE flags have been stripped from the
desktop profile. More specifically:
GNOME subprofile contains: USE="eds evo gnome gstreamer"
KDE subprofile contains: USE="kde"

(I'll commit the change on Monday, 15 Mar 2010)

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 <leio@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

On Friday 12 March 2010 19:39:48 Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 12 March 2010 10:48, Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@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

On Monday 08 March 2010 03:17:57 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2010 16:52:50 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > Hello
> > I have managed to split the desktop profile to gnome and kde submenus.
> > The result can be found in kde-crazy overlay (not in layman) [1]
> > I splitted every desktop/ folder i found. The following issues raised
> > though: 1) I didn't touch the hardened and selinux directories although
> > they do contain a desktop folder. Should I proceed in those or not?
> > 2) Some mips/ subdirs don't point to targets/, so I guess the split went
> > to /dev/null. So I asked ssuominen who suggested to skip the mips
> > directories, and I reverted. (Edit: ssuominen just committed changes in
> > mips profiles in tree).
> > 3) There were no desktop dirs for bsd/prefix etc.
> > 4) Also take a look at how I splitted the USE flags (with ssuominen's and
> > yngwin's suggestions) and propose your corrections plz. For example, I
> > don't really like the firefox flag in kde, and I'd suggest a -firefox
> > (ugly, I know) in kde's make.defaults
> >
> > Please Please Please Please Please TEST / REVIEW (especially the arch
> > teams plz)
> >
> > I'll give three days max for the suggestions here etc, and then I'll
> > proceed in creating the news item. So I guess it will be committed in a
> > week max. Thanks
> >
> > [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/kde-crazy.git;a=summary
>
> (I doubt that anyone tested it)
>
> 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
>
> PS. Please test it

News item commited, also added note to KDE guide and proposed note for GNOME
FAQ. I didn't find anything relevant about profiles in xorg guide so I skipped
it. I'll commit this change this Friday, 26 March

@ Docs Team, do you want a handbook patch? I don't think it is needed, but
whatever you say
--
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams
blog.tampakrap.gr