Archives
Archives
| From: | Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o> | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like | ||
| Date: | Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:28:54 | ||
| Message-Id: | CAGfcS_=RqT=uhZGNUAFKWJY9v2Nx1E_eecPr6jOQteyPByhOrQ@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like by "Dustin C. Hatch" |
||
| 1 | On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 | > The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use |
| 3 | > default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use |
| 4 | > directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous |
| 5 | > defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering |
| 6 | > removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | And this is the problem with having the default profile be really |
| 9 | minimal. It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are |
| 10 | much more painful to override. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Rich |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like | Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like | Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> |