| 1 |
There are other ways to achieve a "lighter" system, but that's not really |
| 2 |
what this is about. The server profiles are not any lighter than the base |
| 3 |
profiles. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
To those in favor of keeping some kind of "server" profile around, how |
| 6 |
would it differ from the base profile? What would you enable or disable on |
| 7 |
top of the base? I am pretty sure that the current USE="-perl -python snmp |
| 8 |
truetype xml" is not what any of you would suggest. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In my opinion, removing /usr/portage/profiles/targets/server/make.defaults |
| 11 |
and having the "server" target apply nothing over the base profiles, and |
| 12 |
then dropping the warning from the server profiles, would be a better |
| 13 |
situation than where we are now. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-Ben |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Gregory M. Turner <gmt@×××××.us> wrote: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> On 10/11/2012 1:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why |
| 25 |
>>> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly |
| 26 |
>>> desire it on many systems. like servers. the desktop and developer |
| 27 |
>>> profiles are not appropriate. |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> If you want a light |
| 31 |
>> profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in |
| 32 |
>> make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or |
| 33 |
>> in make.conf. |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> <popcorn> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -gmt |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
Archives