| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why you think |
| 3 |
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many |
| 4 |
> systems. like servers. the desktop and developer profiles are not |
| 5 |
> appropriate. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I think the base profiles generally are appropriate. Most of the |
| 8 |
stuff that I'd consider a value-add on ANY server is already in the |
| 9 |
base profile. Maybe if we dropped ssh from system then having it in a |
| 10 |
server profile would make sense. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
When I build server-like installs I just use the generic profile as a |
| 13 |
starting point. Servers could do anything. The software on a LAMP is |
| 14 |
going to be way different than the software on a mail server or a DNS |
| 15 |
server. And, if I am going to run a mail server I might want any of |
| 16 |
14 varieties of mail-related services. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I could see some use for profiles if they were maintained and designed |
| 19 |
so that you could pick the profile, do an emerge -uDN world, and end |
| 20 |
up with a "just works" server. However, that would likely mean having |
| 21 |
dozens of them, and unless somebody wants to maintain them I don't see |
| 22 |
the point. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives