| 1 |
kashani wrote: |
| 2 |
> Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 3 |
>> kashani wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I agree with you. Other then turning on ldap globally, which |
| 5 |
>>> annoyed me, I saw no difference from straight 2006.1 at least with my |
| 6 |
>>> normal USE flags. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Is your USE="-ldap" broken? :P You can't satisfy everyone. The profile |
| 9 |
>> does nothing more than give people a more server-oriented set of |
| 10 |
>> default USE. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Heh. In my mind this is reason we haven't seen much progress on the |
| 14 |
> server front. Some people imagine a server profile to be the minimum USE |
| 15 |
> flags needed to have a working system to which they can add their own |
| 16 |
> flags. Others want something that has made some decisions for them or at |
| 17 |
> least a recommended set of flags that will enable server functionality. |
| 18 |
> Apparently I'm in that first category or I've just been doing it too |
| 19 |
Well, lowest common denominator would be an idea. On servers, I always |
| 20 |
do -* anyway, so profiles that change a few use-flags don't really |
| 21 |
matter at all to me anyway. |
| 22 |
I also see the point that this is not that doable, as there are probably |
| 23 |
quite a few who do not use pam at all (which I on the other hand do). |
| 24 |
But why would, by default, X be activated? (Also a few others, but I |
| 25 |
think that X is the best example of "too much") |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Greetings, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Jonas |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives