Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/)
-   -   Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/711578-proposal-removing-server-profile-variants-profiles-desc.html)

Ben Kohler 10-11-2012 06:56 PM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
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 its make.defaults. *If this target is being kept around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without presenting it as a viable option for new users.

Thoughts?
-Ben Kohler

Mike Frysinger 10-11-2012 07:22 PM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
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 unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
> silly, if you look at its make.defaults. If this target is being kept
> around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from
> profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without
> presenting it as a viable option for new users.

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.
-mike

Rich Freeman 10-11-2012 07:29 PM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@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
> appropriate.

I think the base profiles generally are appropriate. Most of the
stuff that I'd consider a value-add on ANY server is already in the
base profile. Maybe if we dropped ssh from system then having it in a
server profile would make sense.

When I build server-like installs I just use the generic profile as a
starting point. Servers could do anything. The software on a LAMP is
going to be way different than the software on a mail server or a DNS
server. And, if I am going to run a mail server I might want any of
14 varieties of mail-related services.

I could see some use for profiles if they were maintained and designed
so that you could pick the profile, do an emerge -uDN world, and end
up with a "just works" server. However, that would likely mean having
dozens of them, and unless somebody wants to maintain them I don't see
the point.

Rich

"Walter Dnes" 10-11-2012 08:04 PM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
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.

If it's going to be kept around, then please get rid of the warning in
ebuilds. I'm one of the few people who checks /var/log/portage/elog
regularly. The server profile is useless because it pollutes
/var/log/portage/elog with a warning that this profile is unmaintained...
***ONCE FOR EVERY LAST SINGLE PACKAGE YOU BUILD***. If you want a light
profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
in make.conf.

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

"Gregory M. Turner" 10-11-2012 10:22 PM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
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 developer
profiles are not appropriate.


If you want a light
profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
in make.conf.


<popcorn>

-gmt

Ben Kohler 10-11-2012 10:31 PM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
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 disable on top of the base? *I am pretty sure that the current*USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml" is not what any of you would suggest.

In my opinion, removing /usr/portage/profiles/targets/server/make.defaults and having the "server" target apply nothing over the base profiles, and then dropping the warning from the server profiles, would be a better situation than where we are now.


-Ben

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Gregory M. Turner <gmt@malth.us> wrote:

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 developer

profiles are not appropriate.




If you want a light

profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in

make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or

in make.conf.




<popcorn>



-gmt

Markos Chandras 10-12-2012 08:08 AM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@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 profile list" for new users. As far
>> as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
>> silly, if you look at its make.defaults. If this target is being kept
>> around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from
>> profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without
>> presenting it as a viable option for new users.
>
> 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.
> -mike

+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?

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Markos Chandras 10-12-2012 08:10 AM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@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. like servers. the desktop and developer
>> profiles are not appropriate.
>
> If it's going to be kept around, then please get rid of the warning in
> ebuilds. I'm one of the few people who checks /var/log/portage/elog
> regularly. The server profile is useless because it pollutes
> /var/log/portage/elog with a warning that this profile is unmaintained...
> ***ONCE FOR EVERY LAST SINGLE PACKAGE YOU BUILD***. If you want a light
> profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
> make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
> in make.conf.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>

We can remove the warning. There is nothing really wrong with these profiles.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Rich Freeman 10-12-2012 08:18 AM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@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?

Looking at the actual profiles themselves, using server vs the base
profile makes these changes:
USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"

So, you're getting less perl/python support, but you're getting snmp,
truetype, and xml.

I think overall you'd get a more minimal setup with the base profile,
and if you really want -perl/-python you could just set those in your
USE. I'd think that your home box would be more likely to benefit
from perl/python support on packages than having snmp support. But,
to each his own...

I'd be all for there being an actual minimal profile, but I don't
think server really is that.

Rich

Markos Chandras 10-12-2012 09:11 AM

Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc
 
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@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?
>
> Looking at the actual profiles themselves, using server vs the base
> profile makes these changes:
> USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
>
> So, you're getting less perl/python support, but you're getting snmp,
> truetype, and xml.
>
> I think overall you'd get a more minimal setup with the base profile,
> and if you really want -perl/-python you could just set those in your
> USE. I'd think that your home box would be more likely to benefit
> from perl/python support on packages than having snmp support. But,
> to each his own...
>
> I'd be all for there being an actual minimal profile, but I don't
> think server really is that.
>
> Rich
>

Removing python and perl support is good enough to justify that this
profile is "minimal" ;)
Moreover, snmp is something you really want in 24/7 boxes. Anyhow, I
see no reason to remove these profiles just
because they are 'similar' to the base profile. But I do agree to
remove the ewarn message as it a bit annoying if you
update such systems often enough.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:08 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.