Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want. Anything else seems a bit too random. This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile to start building from. Too many people are doing this. Remember that we can also modify USE_ORDER to specifically drop profile flags *or* package-default flags, but not necessarily both. Maybe this is something that should be brought above the table and documented. It's a lot harder to shoot yourself in the foot by just dropping profile flags, but keeping package defaults. Of course, that adds another factor to the USE=dri in profile versus package-default discussion, too. -Ben Kohler
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On 23:47 Sat 19 Jan , Walter Dnes wrote: ... On a lark, I once tried the default/linux/x86/10.0 profile for a re-install on my netbook without -*. I soon ended up with more - entries in make.conf and package.use, than I have add-on entries when using -*. And I was only half-way through installing the apps I normally use. I went back to -*. I have to admit that I've been using USE=-* myflags in my server boxes for a long time now, however it's a nasty hack and I wish for a better alternative. Profiles exist for reasons, bypassing them may break things unless you know what you're doing and you're active in Gentoo's community (so that have knowledge of certain bugs/news/discussions in mailing lists etc.). The problem is not with experienced users who can find their way. It is with newcomers. I like the idea of having minimal base profiles and on top of them desktop and/or server profiles enabling certain things. Because newcomers will not have to scratch their heads (as I wrote previously) from the first moment, if they enable one of them. Of course, even experienced users sometimes may become frustrated, when doing everything manually. (-* etc.). And things become more complex as time passes (new EAPIs, new portage features). This thread is about suggestions on better server profiles and need to think about that. For example,I would like to see a server profile with iptables and iproute2 on the system set. Maybe also a logger or a metapackage pulling certain packages (eg. bind-tools and nfs-utils). But it's just me, and it's a matter of taste/experience. I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. Just, let's don't forget that profiles are not only about USE flags (because most discussions have been about the latter). -- Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist ) ( Gentoo Lisp Project ) pgppwHH1awD7E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want. Anything else seems a bit too random. I haven't yet experimented with creating my own profiles. I might still. Ben, binary distributions like debian without cups? Forget about it. They can't manage two differently compiled binary packages of e.g. samba, so guess if they will have a samba without printing support? ;) //Peter pgpflDxc5R_rc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want. Anything else seems a bit too random. This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile to start building from. Too many people are doing this. Ben, binary distributions like debian without cups? Forget about it. They can't manage two differently compiled binary packages of e.g. samba, so guess if they will have a samba without printing support? ;) I know, I am an idealist. Guess why I keep coming back to Gentoo... -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:18 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want. Anything else seems a bit too random. This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile to start building from. Too many people are doing this. -* will still be required by those same people for EAPI 1 package defaults. Cleaning a profile won't change that. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 19 January 2013 08:01, Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca 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 installed but not have a printer. They need not be servers if the target is simply sane-but-minimal. +1 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 expected to be more complete. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org 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 expected to be more complete. Unless we plan on adding yet another profile for normal users I think this is really pushing it. I'm not sure I buy disabling it on the default profile, let alone the desktop one. Yes, I'm sure some people don't own printers. However, that figure has to be fairly low. Yes, users who have printers can enable it, but those without printers can also disable it. I don't think I actually know anybody who owns a computer but not a printer. Frequency of use has to count for something here. Maybe we should have some kind of use-case to guide how we create each profile. I'm concerned that the default profile is going to turn into something that isn't actually useful for anybody. It will still be too heavy for people who are running embedded, it will be way to light for people who just want a computer that works, it won't have support for things people need on servers, and so on. If the default profile isn't actually intended to be used by anybody we can be up-front about that and then create a profile that actually can be used. For the desktop profile I think that it shouldn't pull in KDE/Gnome-related deps/features (which are REALLY heavy), but otherwise should be similar to what you'd get on any other desktop-oriented distro (debian, ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, mint, arch, etc). That generally means that the packages that are installed should be fairly feature-complete, especially around things like multimedia, etc. Could you imagine ANY other desktop-oriented distro not having printer support by default? Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org 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 expected to be more complete. Unless we plan on adding yet another profile for normal users I think this is really pushing it. I'm not sure I buy disabling it on the default profile, let alone the desktop one. I guess it comes down to either this, or the creation of a truly minimal profile, which quite a few people really want. Yes, I'm sure some people don't own printers. However, that figure has to be fairly low. I'm not so sure about that. The majority of my friends and colleagues don't own a printer. When we do need to print something, it would be for work, so we have it printed at work. Yes, users who have printers can enable it, but those without printers can also disable it. I don't think I actually know anybody who owns a computer but not a printer. Frequency of use has to count for something here. Indeed, and from what I see around me, that is fairly low. But this could be a cultural difference. Maybe we should have some kind of use-case to guide how we create each profile. I'm concerned that the default profile is going to turn into something that isn't actually useful for anybody. It will still be too heavy for people who are running embedded, it will be way to light for people who just want a computer that works, it won't have support for things people need on servers, and so on. If the default profile isn't actually intended to be used by anybody we can be up-front about that and then create a profile that actually can be used. I think the default should be minimal but useful. For the desktop profile I think that it shouldn't pull in KDE/Gnome-related deps/features (which are REALLY heavy), but otherwise should be similar to what you'd get on any other desktop-oriented distro (debian, ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, mint, arch, etc). That generally means that the packages that are installed should be fairly feature-complete, especially around things like multimedia, etc. Could you imagine ANY other desktop-oriented distro not having printer support by default? 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... -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
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... Well, it's not part of the basic install -- cups isn't part of @system. It's just installed when you install something that has compile-time printer support, afaik. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlD68s4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB4pAD/cAJF+K7srugh5gpzaijoanLM s3xGUrWdNl8yQH2l9CMA/0mCq1ThqhSaDUv0b0cjSGuoSwVWz3PX8BQC5OwylPKp =EEv8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
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 d...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with USE=-* and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a basic server machine. Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some version of Python installed, but setting USE=-* removes all support for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks. My thought is that base should have just enough enabled for stage3 to be self-hosting. Moving existing base to something like common would retain a profile for that most people would want this set. On a lark, I once tried the default/linux/x86/10.0 profile for a re-install on my netbook without -*. I soon ended up with more - entries in make.conf and package.use, than I have add-on entries when using -*. And I was only half-way through installing the apps I normally use. I went back to -*. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:36:18 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and * have the deprecation warning for 10.0/server point to 13.0 (i.e. prompt users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile). whenever the rest of the developers reach a consensus, please file a bug report to let the documentation team know what changes we need to make to the upgrade guide and other docs. thanks! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:02:48 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: We might be talking past each other. Sane but minimal is the target. Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in @system - ugh!). The question is whether a minimal/base system should have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it. And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one. I just want to make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being removed anyway. 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 installed but not have a printer. They need not be servers if the target is simply sane-but-minimal. Chris
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 1/16/2013 11:32, Alexis Ballier wrote: Other option: kill the server subprofiles, keep profiles/target/server and let people finally set /etc/make.profile as a dir and play with multiple inheritance. We don't need dozens of subprofiles with only eapi and parent files in them... A. I would love to see this option, especially if eselect would allow us to activate multiple profiles. It would really make centralizing configuration across multiple machines much easier (i.e. one could activate the base profile and a personal profile from a layman overlay). -- ♫Dustin
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with USE=-* and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a basic server machine. Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some version of Python installed, but setting USE=-* removes all support for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: my 2ct: * dri and cups should probably be moved to desktop profile * pppd is a local useflag and should be enabled by default in the capi ebuild Definitely agree. Can we make these changes? Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with USE=-* and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a basic server machine. Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some version of Python installed, but setting USE=-* removes all support for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks. Cheers, Dirkjan My thought is that base should have just enough enabled for stage3 to be self-hosting. Moving existing base to something like common would retain a profile for that most people would want this set.
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 01/17/2013 12:32 AM, Dustin C. Hatch wrote: On 1/16/2013 11:32, Alexis Ballier wrote: Other option: kill the server subprofiles, keep profiles/target/server and let people finally set /etc/make.profile as a dir and play with multiple inheritance. We don't need dozens of subprofiles with only eapi and parent files in them... A. I would love to see this option, especially if eselect would allow us to activate multiple profiles. It would really make centralizing configuration across multiple machines much easier (i.e. one could activate the base profile and a personal profile from a layman overlay). Funtoo has been active in this area: http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/Funtoo_1.0_Profile http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/Flavors_and_Mix-ins http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/Custom_Profiles -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:17:26 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the corresponding packages are actually installed. For example, the cups flag doesn't really have an effect unless you install apps that do printing, so it seems pretty safe to leave in a minimal profile (would you really want to install libreoffice, chromium, or foomatic and not have cups support?). Really? Yes, I can see plenty of cases where I’d want LO or Chromium but with USE=-cups, because there’s no printer anywhere in sight. Why should that mean I don’t want an office suite or a web browser? Probably not so much foomatic (though maybe there are other printing frameworks than CUPS that people might use?), but LO and Chromium absolutely. Chris
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:17:26 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the corresponding packages are actually installed. For example, the cups flag doesn't really have an effect unless you install apps that do printing, so it seems pretty safe to leave in a minimal profile (would you really want to install libreoffice, chromium, or foomatic and not have cups support?). Really? Yes, I can see plenty of cases where I’d want LO or Chromium but with USE=-cups, because there’s no printer anywhere in sight. Why should that mean I don’t want an office suite or a web browser? Probably not so much foomatic (though maybe there are other printing frameworks than CUPS that people might use?), but LO and Chromium absolutely. Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user. And the context here is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with -cups? If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed than chromium in the first place. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user. And the context here is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with -cups? If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed than chromium in the first place. Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane but minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case USE=cups might make sense. Chris
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user. And the context here is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with -cups? If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed than chromium in the first place. Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane but minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case USE=cups might make sense. We might be talking past each other. Sane but minimal is the target. Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in @system - ugh!). The question is whether a minimal/base system should have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it. And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one. I just want to make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being removed anyway. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/17/2013 08:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user. And the context here is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with -cups? If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed than chromium in the first place. Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane but minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case USE=cups might make sense. We might be talking past each other. Sane but minimal is the target. Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in @system - ugh!). The question is whether a minimal/base system should have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it. And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one. I just want to make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being removed anyway. Rich If you want to make the base profile the sane minimal one, dropping flags is the right way to go. And cups does not belong to such a profile. Minimal should be ehh minimal and other profiles should build on top of it. Let the other profiles enable the flags they need. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQ+GDSAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCTMoQAJIWJp7nBoIkMPXzQODQvUlL bHYl28PmDTVjeSY3DPTq9Oji4A83bD2Y/g6IocDQNEVqwawsgFuT3i1rEAaSBsZg Idy1OMiRibEI84Jabn5YWQ6tXnm9baH7JhgwVfh9vD83H7746w0vdPMDQqIz02Cn vBza5ClBIr7slyxXNkp7jOCILHY4/LWJ4sNXdXHZkHVA+aOc0yZ/IOQH8q5FYiUa K6LPQfXwDsooUXHn6LDwd0iFuBjATZmsVnDLr0aJjm43eTxp/DxNsJS+lExwLCXI zjFnGGlEjhEiTZoOdIVg563jxjLnf/kbKdfkr0dYMoPZ4snoGKaIz3iRq9RqutuA iA03HuFU/hMAkpb6ZCiS7jWqER4iVzpRDg1eSgRYbE49sUZ5l7eRVKbnfVd3KDmG CR5qJBhJixwKXD50szRqHWdauNPZ77Ctz/GCLWB866SAAuOiKzn58g1gW7bTRLLP bfCHpLnQisr5u75vkBvANpjxfgvNkrnZYCxBDcoXqgEUbyAjqVhDLEwbH+xUnr6h NB40gzETGwPm6ypECbpUQC9FHigzew2/+Br0aydpiSYm1610+erJyuFK4sDhrxhF Yitpx/oR4cBfPTJOW5mMI3RzA68IeBXXsXqjEsJPhicZhMGmgvx4PeOAg5Ni2ZUc 3tqEGgpcVAMtEPLdH3PC =/qMW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 16 January 2013 04:20, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote: 16.01.2013 03:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and * have the deprecation warning for 10.0/server point to 13.0 (i.e. prompt users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile). Opinions? [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.] Cheers, A I remember, that hwoarang was strongly against removal of server profile. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo Linux Developer Desktop-effects project lead I still am, but looks like the majority of people want them removed, so I don't mind. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. -- Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist ) ( Gentoo Lisp Project ) pgppYe9oEAYWg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos pchr...@gentoo.org wrote: On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. The problem, I think, is that 'server' is a very generic thing. Am I looking for a NAS? A SAN? A web server? A proxy server? An X11 application server? A font server? VOIP? If people who use the server profile are looking for a minimalist profile, I think they'd probably be best served with a profile that's specifically designed for we disable everything we can to still wind up with a working stage 3. Enable what you need from there. That also suggests a way to help automate maintenance; if building a stage 3 with the minimal profile fails, then either the package has a bug or the profile needs an update...with a strong bias toward the former. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/16/2013 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. We have a base profile, we have a desktop profile... wouldn't that make the base the minimal profile that would likely be fit for a server? If not, we really should move that way. Having a base, desktop, and server profile seems silly. Base profile is for servers in my eyes (and in my use). - -ZC -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ9rZZAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKqOEP/ix6hTdghZ5ZNHPRAfaoUXvq pDh956sSwOsRrqkOLltPi9GRHmfGxJoVSHLzDy17V00UyB+N9nC7naWGTDCu2YyZ GCIi03nFfI4FSO9iMZVTnCCiAq2/xpWehloWcwu/m4nT8L7KqMl+LE3Gt+/aGzm4 +CdAuR8R5ceZKbquEiyJ4wwlsugMp386OB90+z9a7xSMKHotxkkhlii/1M9SnOaW M1ngsQDuSFowa9B+gxCYnsP8TZDE5cgeihWW7sAfc/MmImfGEXLZ6OkyNWD6ZG+5 pPFi8hlP+9A0Xe4ovcfU46c8hwWnZHL+pe/UCzTC287bMEgzdgpVBmBKQVVSwzLa wMlWNx/9B/COB5c5jcMb8N2EZ356/0xdDIDNDgdTHJr71eNa/5+BfXSbRwKxs3Ar rZbBEAa+MUOP4bPA5IHktHl+HanVcz8VssS1mrGJKWFnKfqZXjJKRfhunv3M3Q0j 3o/qtUQ3vzAh72Mdd3w3x2zXhJBTo8RsgzSPR9wmVpwtnp6v/31wakF0WGAfG8eZ zunFf8dMxgj2SsZrdmVfRoAnMoJj6etzkwO6C2I4A1+A7XTatARntCQZeO3Rl0Vz cZTasaphgHQCNSu7g2xE70PN/NmSHmUdz/Y/w4PXjIsQqAFN7j1ZMnxH1IJBb2cT Bp+lEn7jNn4Bs1av/jn9 =deIt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/01/13 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. Just to summarize the last massive thread on this: 1 - they aren't maintained; they haven't changed for years 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile is USE=+snmp and maybe one other flag 3 - there isn't any general consensus on what makes a server, as such there isn't any consensus on how to make server profiles more useful. ... i think that's about it? PS: +1 from me. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlD2tjQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDGbwEAr4WGmtio2d+uWTkroEGCbu4U 53GdR5R3A4Fti8UXzj8A/iM805vMnkojNTNGw8b5XYVXPbYrZ9TJ4GPp0onE8AK8 =6Lja -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
Other option: kill the server subprofiles, keep profiles/target/server and let people finally set /etc/make.profile as a dir and play with multiple inheritance. We don't need dozens of subprofiles with only eapi and parent files in them... A.
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 16 January 2013 22:16, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote: We have a base profile, we have a desktop profile... wouldn't that make the base the minimal profile that would likely be fit for a server? If not, we really should move that way. Having a base, desktop, and server profile seems silly. Base profile is for servers in my eyes (and in my use). +1 -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 16/01/13 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. Just to summarize the last massive thread on this: 1 - they aren't maintained; they haven't changed for years I think you're confusing updates with maintenance. They work fine as is therefore no need for updates. 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile is USE=+snmp and maybe one other flag USE=-perl -python snmp truetype xml 3 - there isn't any general consensus on what makes a server, as such there isn't any consensus on how to make server profiles more useful. Just make the base profile as minimal as possible and people will be happy. ... i think that's about it? PS: +1 from me. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlD2tjQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDGbwEAr4WGmtio2d+uWTkroEGCbu4U 53GdR5R3A4Fti8UXzj8A/iM805vMnkojNTNGw8b5XYVXPbYrZ9TJ4GPp0onE8AK8 =6Lja -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 01/16/2013 01:18 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: On 16/01/13 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. Just to summarize the last massive thread on this: 1 - they aren't maintained; they haven't changed for years I think you're confusing updates with maintenance. They work fine as is therefore no need for updates. 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile is USE=+snmp and maybe one other flag USE=-perl -python snmp truetype xml 3 - there isn't any general consensus on what makes a server, as such there isn't any consensus on how to make server profiles more useful. Just make the base profile as minimal as possible and people will be happy. ... i think that's about it? PS: +1 from me. Agreed on making the base copy as minimal as possible. (which it is, at least good enough for me). -- -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote: 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile is USE=+snmp and maybe one other flag USE=-perl -python snmp truetype xml As has been pointed out previously, the base profile does not set USE=perl python, so negating those flags in the server profile does basically nothing. If certain packages have IUSE=+perl +python it might make a difference, but I don't think I have ever seen that. IMO, setting truetype and xml for a server profile is just weird.
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/16/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Mol wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos pchr...@gentoo.org wrote: On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. -1, unless other profile options being offered are minimal enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. The problem, I think, is that 'server' is a very generic thing. Am I looking for a NAS? A SAN? A web server? A proxy server? An X11 application server? A font server? VOIP? If people who use the server profile are looking for a minimalist profile, I think they'd probably be best served with a profile that's specifically designed for we disable everything we can to still wind up with a working stage 3. Enable what you need from there. That also suggests a way to help automate maintenance; if building a stage 3 with the minimal profile fails, then either the package has a bug or the profile needs an update...with a strong bias toward the former. Agreed. An extremely minimal profile would also interest those looking to learn the fundamentals of Gentoo or come from other distros that start with almost nothing. I'd certainly be interested in testing that profile on a separate machine. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ9wwqAAoJEJUrb08JgYgH+o4H/394Ugp+Khdgmwn054QADhb9 pncIA+UPM5CkU6CfK3PAH8ZQShbU055Yc8mx9buraj1Ie+O8gJceZGGIkJNIzCDS iCUMfzcSpam6EF2Zj9FDWeKJLWOuX/i15fs+p30ITy27eq5RDasU4t7umhw1pUdX XkC4HGz9TDnHnjC9valfb7B7spuQuqngTnEf6IMosjVe0wMptRHozHaXvCnyoAWa db9zpJ8gOLWBRC7G4/826sif74i+WHIIq3Af+g3F5VhVpfrtfDA/1h8O0p/Oe9Nk FWU2bKjhZ/oPwSg90rrpOYcXhJBP+wQkpwtsWHA8OwgafeQ5Wgk+W5GQdg2BBJo= =ho30 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: As has been pointed out previously, the base profile does not set USE=perl python, so negating those flags in the server profile does basically nothing. If certain packages have IUSE=+perl +python it might make a difference, but I don't think I have ever seen that. IMO, setting truetype and xml for a server profile is just weird. Yup, server profile is essentially base profile plus snmp, truetype, and xml. That really doesn't make sense. ++ to just dropping it, and by all means if people see ways to make the base profile even more minimal please chime in, but it is already the most minimal profile out there. If somebody wants to come up with a server profile that actually makes sense by all means do so, but I think the current one is just baggage. If we wanted server profiles that made sense most likely it would be part of some more holistic program (with docs, etc) and broken down by server type (mail, web, LAMP, etc). That doesn't exist now, and I'm not planning to build it. :) Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
Am Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013, 00:36:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. OK, I consider this consensus enough. [One nay conditional on other profiles not being minimal enough, and several people giving good reason why the server profile does not provide any additional value.] Being the one that does the work, the server profiles are disappearing in 13.0. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 22:14 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013, 00:36:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: OK, I consider this consensus enough. ... Being the one that does the work, the server profiles are disappearing in 13.0. Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp, fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages). I've been devaway for long, probably this was discussed in the past (as Ian (axs) pointed out), but am I the only one who finds it a little wrong? Don't get me wrong on my example, above. Eg. I love fortran, however I don't know why I should build it on every gcc update if I don't use it in my server (of course I can disabled it, yes I know). Many have said that a server is something very generic, so is desktop. I think profiles were invented to make things easier and safer for users, so now we 're doing it for desktop users but people who want to build a server box have to scratch their heads from the first moment. I'm fine with that if our community is fine with that. I'm not blaming anyone, as the server profiles are useless atm, it was the right call to remove them. I'm just wondering if this happened because they were not maintained properly or because we really don't need them. Panagiotis * I took as example the base default/linux/amd64/10.0 . ps. I'll try find the old discussions which may help me understand things better. -- Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist ) ( Gentoo Lisp Project ) pgpNAsDOu3bR2.pgp Description: PGP signature
How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
I think we agree that the last state of the server profiles was not useful. So let's discuss what would be useful. For the medium-term future, not for this current step now. Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp, fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages). my 2ct: * dri and cups should probably be moved to desktop profile * pppd is a local useflag and should be enabled by default in the capi ebuild * for apache2 and mysql see below, should be off imho even in a server profile... * caps should be discussed in a wider context (portage) Many have said that a server is something very generic, so is desktop. I think profiles were invented to make things easier and safer for users, so now we 're doing it for desktop users but people who want to build a server box have to scratch their heads from the first moment. I'm fine with that if our community is fine with that. Sure a server is something generic, too. However, since you mentioned mysql above, how about a postgres server? Or a web server using a daemon different from apache? :) This is why I think (as others) a server profile should basically be the same as a minimal profile. And then, defining a minimal profile separate from the base profile does not make too much sense. Rather, carefully try to move all specific stuff out of the base profile. [ That said, CVS is such a pain, I'll not do anything like this again before we finish the GIT migration... :D ] -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59:11AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote Sure a server is something generic, too. However, since you mentioned mysql above, how about a postgres server? Or a web server using a daemon different from apache? :) This is why I think (as others) a server profile should basically be the same as a minimal profile. And then, defining a minimal profile separate from the base profile does not make too much sense. Rather, carefully try to move all specific stuff out of the base profile. If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with USE=-* and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a basic server machine. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos pchr...@gentoo.org wrote: Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp, fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages). Keep in mind that the current server profile has all the problems you just listed as well. Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the corresponding packages are actually installed. For example, the cups flag doesn't really have an effect unless you install apps that do printing, so it seems pretty safe to leave in a minimal profile (would you really want to install libreoffice, chromium, or foomatic and not have cups support?). The only non-desktopy package I see that uses cups is samba, and if you're setting up a samba server there is a decent chance you'd want cups anyway. So, I wouldn't equate minimal as -*. I think that it makes sense to have use flags that result in a very conservative installation of the core packages (which isn't necessarily completely minimal), and which don't pull in a lot of dependencies for other packages unless most would want them anyway. By all means point out use flags that actually do cause issues with servers. However, be careful about knee-jerk reactions. Many flags really do make sense in context - they don't do anything on a minimal system, and when they do bring in dependencies they tend to be ones you'd want anyway. And, of course, when many of those profiles were first crafted there were not package-level USE defaults, so that is something we can also leverage to cut down on global flag settings (one way or the other). Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 16/01/13 01:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and * have the deprecation warning for 10.0/server point to 13.0 (i.e. prompt users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile). Opinions? [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.] Cheers, A +1
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
16.01.2013 03:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Hi, several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and * have the deprecation warning for 10.0/server point to 13.0 (i.e. prompt users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile). Opinions? [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.] Cheers, A I remember, that hwoarang was strongly against removal of server profile. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo Linux Developer Desktop-effects project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...
On 1/15/13 3:36 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 - 13.0 transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) server profiles. The easiest way to do this would be to * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and * have the deprecation warning for 10.0/server point to 13.0 (i.e. prompt users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile). Sounds great! +1 If there are any concerns, why don't we adjust the 13.0 base profile or something? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
