| 1 |
Am 29.10.2010 14:13, schrieb Petteri Räty: |
| 2 |
> On 29.10.2010 15.02, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default |
| 6 |
>>> IUSE |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> -apache2 |
| 9 |
>>> -ldap |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the |
| 14 |
>> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled. |
| 15 |
>> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have |
| 16 |
>> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing |
| 17 |
>> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I |
| 18 |
>> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion |
| 19 |
>> about this. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> And enabling a use flag should be question of is it wanted when a |
| 23 |
> package actually support those flags. On a server when you are |
| 24 |
> installing a package with a apache use flag it's certainly possible to |
| 25 |
> you would like to have it enabled more often than not. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Regards, |
| 28 |
> Petteri |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Which raises the question, if those people, who want to install a minimal server will mostly use |
| 33 |
apache or something different. And especially for minimal setups, i dont think that apache will be |
| 34 |
the first choice, so i agree with the removal of those USE flags from default IUSE. |
| 35 |
The profile is intended to have a minimal set of flags, i would call apache an additional optional |
| 36 |
flag, not a default option for minimal server setups. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives