On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:51 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:27 -0500, solar wrote:
> > You cant really do a server profile so far nested within the 
> > default-linux profiles. The flags will be just wrong.

> Have you verified this or are you just assuming?

took a quick peek and I know how default-linux is maintained. Stuff 
gets added on a whim to upper levels.

> > Also a server is not something you should be switching profiles every 6 
> > months.
> 
> This I definitely agree with, with the exception that I am specifically
> looking to create a profile set that *is* changed every release.  The
> main difference here would be that profiles would be deprecated/removed
> at a *much* slower rate.

While I can semi agree with you here. If we do it. It should either be 
a profile that does not change in terms of being deprecated unless 
there is a real ABI change or one that is an annual profile.

> > If you are serious about a server profile I'd suggest dropping what you 
> > are thinking now. Lets have a meeting (hardened + server + infra +
> > releng ) folks and do it right together.
> 
> I'm not sure what either Infra or Hardened would have to do with
> "default-linux" stuff, except that their input would be very valued as
> they would be experienced in these matters.  

Reason I say this is that time and time again the idea of server 
profiles have been brought up. It's a task I've been willing/wanting to 
take on and work with teams. 
But in the end the result has always been that the 
hardened profile is suitable/ideal for servers and that adding an 
explicit server profile was opted against. Now by you creating one you 
are effectively setting precedence of what a server profile should be.

> I have no problem with
> having some sort of meeting.  My primary reason for the profile is to
> keep all of the "cruft" from dev-lang/php out of the desktop profiles
> and to keep the gnome and kde stuff out of the server profile.  I *know*
> that they're not perfect or even what is necessarily desired, which was
> the point of including all of the profile stuff in the original email.

understood. Heads up however that the (PHP + portage + QA) teams have 
been working together all morning on the best way to solve that bug. So 
a creative solution might be right around the corner.

-peace

-- 
solar <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list