| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Setting the option in the profile tells me: "Here's this option you can |
| 3 |
> play with, and we think you might need it. Or not." |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Setting the option in the ebuild tells me: "You know, we are nice and |
| 6 |
> give you this option, but really you should keep this turned on. |
| 7 |
> Really." |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not sure that either really has those connotations. They're both |
| 10 |
recommended defaults, and as with any recommended default changing it |
| 11 |
could vary in impact. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think that package defaults make sense from the standpoint of having |
| 14 |
flags that really do vary in usage between packages. Profile defaults |
| 15 |
are good for tweaking the overall characteristics of a system. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The profile defaults do seem less and less relevant, because we only |
| 18 |
have 4 profiles. The kde/gnome/desktop profiles get a lot of care, |
| 19 |
and the default basically gets touched very little. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If somebody really wants to make more minimal profiles that actually |
| 22 |
mean something, rather than just trying to tweak the default profile I |
| 23 |
think it would actually make more sense to make new profiles and |
| 24 |
actually turn them into something useful. Maybe have a |
| 25 |
hardened-server profile and accompanying stage3s that let you install |
| 26 |
a hardened server that "just works." Maybe have a Raspberry Pi |
| 27 |
profile. Things that are very specific, and therefore actually |
| 28 |
accomplish something. Obviously somebody needs to maintain them if |
| 29 |
they're going to create them, but at least they'd be useful to |
| 30 |
SOMEBODY. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The problem with things like a "minimal default" profile are that |
| 33 |
everybody has a different idea of what it should be, and as a result |
| 34 |
the people who tend to want minimal just end up setting -* and |
| 35 |
tweaking everything anyway. That means that we're debating stuff and |
| 36 |
messing with existing systems and not really accomplishing anything of |
| 37 |
meaning for anybody. For one person minimal means that we replace |
| 38 |
half the GNU tools with busybox, and for another it just means |
| 39 |
disabling things like CUPS. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I think that rather than tossing individual questions about individual |
| 42 |
flags to the list if some developers want to have a minimal profile |
| 43 |
they should form a project and create one. Maybe leave the default |
| 44 |
profile alone, unless there is some flag change that is just a |
| 45 |
no-brainer. I think the bottom line is that creating a minimal |
| 46 |
default profile that is actually useful for something and which |
| 47 |
accomplishes the goals of those envisioning it is going to be a lot |
| 48 |
harder than it might seem. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Rich |
Archives