1 |
On Monday 29 March 2004 4:45 am, Daniel wrote: |
2 |
> - From the depths of my memory I thinks this was mentioned before |
3 |
> (gentoo-dev ages ago maybe). The main counter argument is that include |
4 |
> headers and static libraries will not adequately forfill the dependency |
5 |
> requirements of a lot of other packages. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Implementing this for binary packages only seems pretty safe to me until |
8 |
> some person attempts an emerge on the server machine and finds the |
9 |
> dependency header files and libraries are not present. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Saw the bug report. Probably a touch brief. I may attempt to spell out the |
12 |
> requirements/ scope a bit more although maybe not today. Feel free to |
13 |
> continue to express the scope on the bug report too (save portage peoples |
14 |
> looking around as to where these requirements are coming from). |
15 |
> |
16 |
> In an embedded environment saving storage space is pretty essential however |
17 |
> on a server surely there is a bit more space to storage space to play with. |
18 |
> I counted 300MB worth of includes and static libs on mine which quite small |
19 |
> comparted to the HDD size. Just my 2c (300MB) worth. |
20 |
|
21 |
Very true, 300MB is not a huge amount of space given modern disk size. The |
22 |
real motivation is not so much just to clear disk space, but is to comletely |
23 |
restrict the contents of every server, particularly public and/or secured |
24 |
machines. Specifically, on a front-end webserver I am working on completely |
25 |
removing any build capabilities. The idea is to make the box as unusable as |
26 |
possible to an intruder in the event it is compromised. Having a fully |
27 |
stocked development environment on a public server just is not necessary |
28 |
outside of the scope of Gentoo itself, and if the machine does not build it's |
29 |
own software then even that need is removed. All that is left over are the |
30 |
headers, docs, static libs, etc, which I am correcting now. |
31 |
|
32 |
Also, in regard to the make.conf FEATURES options, I don't see |
33 |
noman.noinfo,nodoc,etc listed in the mapage or in the site docs. Are there |
34 |
some undocumented features or am I looking in the wrong spot? (using portage |
35 |
2.0.50-r1) |
36 |
|
37 |
Thanks for all the great responses, btw :) |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
- Mike Culbertson |