| 1 |
11.10.2012 23:22, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I would like to suggest that the "server" profile variants |
| 4 |
>> (ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so |
| 5 |
>> that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new users. As far |
| 6 |
>> as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat |
| 7 |
>> silly, if you look at its make.defaults. If this target is being kept |
| 8 |
>> around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from |
| 9 |
>> profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without |
| 10 |
>> presenting it as a viable option for new users. |
| 11 |
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why you think |
| 12 |
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many |
| 13 |
> systems. like servers. the desktop and developer profiles are not |
| 14 |
> appropriate. |
| 15 |
> -mike |
| 16 |
Indeed. Hardened server profile does not fit in all cases, some |
| 17 |
non-hardened server profile should exist, BUT without this warning(if |
| 18 |
it's usable, of course), and probably with better support. |
Archives