Theo Chatzimichos posted on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:52:50 +0200 as excerpted:

> 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

That's not particularly practical, unfortunately. konqueror seems to be
dropping behind, doesn't have proper ssl/certificate management support
with 4.x, and in general is getting less and less useful as a general
purpose browser, and there's simply no way to keep up with the community
development power of its extensions even if kde wanted to. Pretty much
everyone (including kde devs, based on remarks on the kde lists and
planet) seems to use firefox for at least some of their browsing these
days.

Someday, the webkit based rekonq is likely to take over from konqueror,
but upstream says it's not yet mature enough for that. Others use chrome
or chromium, or icecat, or something else. But firefox really does tend
to be the cross-DE default, at least to the point that I believe that
defaulting to USE=-firefox in the kde profiles would be a mistake. Some
of us would like nothing better than to be able to remove both it and with
it gtk, but reality is, that's not going to be a useful default for some
time, and given that, IMO, full optional but default-on support for it in
the KDE desktop profiles via USE flags should be maintained.

--
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

On 03/04/10 15:52, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Hello
> I have managed to split the desktop profile to gnome and kde submenus.

How about XFCE (and LXDE)?


> The
> result can be found in kde-crazy overlay (not in layman) [1]

If this is ever going to be used as a real overlay please set repo_name
to something other than "gentoo", e.g. "kde-crazy".


> 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.

Out of curiosity: why the hurry?



Sebastian

On 03/04/2010 07:59 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 03/04/10 15:52, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>> Hello
>> I have managed to split the desktop profile to gnome and kde submenus.
>
> How about XFCE (and LXDE)?

Pointless.

We (xfce) are fine with plain desktop/ profile (now, and after the gnome
and kde flags are stripped out of it).
The required flags are somewhat jpeg, png, dbus, cairo, gtk and that's
about it. HAL is optional.

I guess it's pretty much same for LXDE.

On 4 March 2010 19:15, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 07:59 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> On 03/04/10 15:52, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> I have managed to split the desktop profile to gnome and kde submenus.
>>
>> How about XFCE (and LXDE)?
>
> Pointless.
>
> We (xfce) are fine with plain desktop/ profile (now, and after the gnome
> and kde flags are stripped out of it).
> The required flags are somewhat jpeg, png, dbus, cairo, gtk and that's
> about it. HAL is optional.
>
> I guess it's pretty much same for LXDE.

As LXDE lead, I am very much for a "lighter" default desktop profile
without gnome and kde specific stuff enabled (as they are going to be
in their own subprofiles). There is no need for a separate profile for
LXDE, just a base desktop profile without too much bloat.

Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
__________________________________________________ ____

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:52:50 +0200
Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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

Feel free to submit some documentation patches now that all our docs are #$!@ed.
Thanks.

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.

Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
__________________________________________________ ____

On Friday 05 March 2010 14:57:32 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.
>
> Cheers,

I maintain the KDE docs, so I'll update them. I'll also send a doc patch for
the gnome and xorg docs. I already blogged about it, and will write the news
item. I suppose those are more than enough. Thanks for pointing that out
--
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams
blog.tampakrap.gr

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:46:50PM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> On Friday 05 March 2010 14:57:32 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> I maintain the KDE docs, so I'll update them. I'll also send a doc patch for
> the gnome and xorg docs. I already blogged about it, and will write the news
> item. I suppose those are more than enough. Thanks for pointing that out
> --
> Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
> Gentoo KDE/Qt Teams
> blog.tampakrap.gr

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

--
Zeerak Waseem

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

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