1 |
Michael Stewart (vericgar) wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I am not against removing the USE-flag as long as apache-2.0 is masked |
4 |
> out, but I highly doubt this is what anybody wants, as it becomes even |
5 |
> more complicated to now use apache-2.0. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Also, if apache-2.0 is masked, many of the add-on modules would need to |
8 |
> be masked out as well. It becomes a nightmare to manage all this (trust |
9 |
> me, I've been there, being the apache maintainer!) |
10 |
|
11 |
I am in no way suggesting that apache-2.0 should be masked! |
12 |
|
13 |
What I am suggesting is that anyone who installs a server needs to know what |
14 |
the heck they are doing, and set up their own system for apache1 -vs- |
15 |
apache2 (or lighthttpd or zope or aolserver or whatever) _after_ the |
16 |
initial system install. |
17 |
|
18 |
Call me a purist, non system packages don't belong in the system profile, |
19 |
and in cases such as this the administrator should be making the choices, |
20 |
not the system profile. |
21 |
|
22 |
I would rather see stacked profiles: |
23 |
|
24 |
server |
25 |
server/apache1 |
26 |
server/apache2 |
27 |
|
28 |
etc... With the "server" profile being a bare bones system profile. |
29 |
|
30 |
But anything would be better than the current bizarro desktop profile, chock |
31 |
full of crap. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |