On Monday 15 October 2012 13:45:22 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile
structure to include a description so that people know the intention
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ben Kohler wrote:
In my ideal world (if I were king), today I would delist them
from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.
I'm strongly in favor
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
please stop top posting. you're making a mess of this whole thread.
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the
Ben Kohler wrote:
In my ideal world (if I were king), today I would delist them
from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.
I'm strongly in favor of this, but of course I am no developer.
//Peter
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the only
marker we had before was implicitly in the name (.../server and
On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the
only
marker we had before was implicitly in the name (.../server and
.../desktop).
Maybe put
On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure
to include a description so that people know the intention of each one.
the only marker we had before was implicitly
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Pielmeier bil...@gentoo.org wrote:
Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
+1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
home boxes. It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
profiles pull in too much useless stuff.
I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These
server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most
minimal profiles, is not accurate. The base profiles are the most minimal
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Ben Kohler bkoh...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These
server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most
On Sunday 14 October 2012 11:42:32 Ben Kohler wrote:
I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These
server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most
minimal profiles, is
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote:
I would like to suggest that the server profile variants
(ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
that they do not show up in eselect
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why
you think having server profiles is undesirable, but i certainly
desire it on many systems.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
+1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
home boxes. It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
profiles anyway?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
+1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
home boxes. It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
profiles pull in
On 10/11/2012 3:31 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
There are other ways to achieve a lighter system, but that's not really
what this is about. The server profiles are not any lighter than the base
profiles.
To those in favor of keeping some kind of server profile around, how
would it differ from the
11.10.2012 23:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote:
I would like to suggest that the server profile variants
(ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
that they do not show up in eselect profile list for new users. As
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Indeed. Hardened server profile does not fit in all cases, some
non-hardened server profile should exist, BUT without this warning(if
it's usable, of course), and probably with better support.
Well, support is mainly a
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
+1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
home boxes. It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
profiles pull in
This is why I said that the server profile are no lighter than the base.
It's actually the base PLUS snmp truetype xml.
My original suggestion of hiding or removing the server profiles was based
on the assumption that no one wants to maintain it. The server profiles
*in their current state* are
Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
+1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
home boxes. It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
profiles anyway?
If you want a minimal profile
I would like to suggest that the server profile variants
(ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
that they do not show up in eselect profile list for new users. As far
as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
silly, if you look at
Ben Kohler wrote:
Thoughts?
+1 for removing noise.
On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote:
I would like to suggest that the server profile variants
(ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
that they do not show up in eselect profile list for new users. As far
as I know, this server target is
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why you think
having server profiles is undesirable, but i certainly desire it on many
systems. like servers. the desktop and developer profiles are not
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why
you think having server profiles is undesirable, but i certainly
desire it on many systems. like servers. the desktop and developer
profiles are not appropriate.
On 10/11/2012 1:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why
you think having server profiles is undesirable, but i certainly
desire it on many systems. like servers. the desktop and
There are other ways to achieve a lighter system, but that's not really
what this is about. The server profiles are not any lighter than the base
profiles.
To those in favor of keeping some kind of server profile around, how
would it differ from the base profile? What would you enable or
28 matches
Mail list logo
