Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: mrfab@×××.net
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo observations
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:14:44
Message-Id: 20020310031135.GA29666@powerhouse
1 Ok, I've been using gentoo for a few weeks now and
2 am for the most part blown away. I had given up
3 on ever finding a distro that I felt would give me
4 the control and flexiblity I wanted (been using
5 lfs for about two years) but finally found what I
6 was looking for. That said, there are a couple of
7 instances in which the current release falls a
8 little short. These aren't flames or complaints,
9 just observations that are VERY much my personal
10 opinion--I just thought I'd point these things out
11 to anyone that was interested.
13 First, where the hell is vi? It is missing from
14 both the boot image and the base install. I
15 realize that I can emerge it, but having to use
16 an editor as horrible as nano, even just for the
17 initial config, was a bit obnoxious.
19 Something else I noticed that the initial install
20 is lacking is some sort of firewall script. It
21 would seem to me that even something as simple as
22 the examples used in the drobbin's stateful
23 firewall design article would be better than
24 nothing.
26 I may be just missing something, but it seemed odd
27 to me that there wasn't someplace I could look to
28 get a full index of ebuilds and descriptions. As a
29 quick hack I used the command below--but it
30 certainly isn't very elegant at all.
32 for x in `find /usr/portage/ -name '*.ebuild'` ; do ; echo `basename $x .ebuild` `grep DESCRIPTION $x` ; done > packages
34 For the most part the file system layout of the
35 installed packages is very well done, but a couple
36 of things didn't seem to fit right to me. First,
37 I understand the reasoning for having both gnome
38 and kde in /usr...but it would be nice if
39 it happend in a consistant manner so that gnome
40 lived in /usr/gnome just as kde lives in
41 /usr/kde. Another file system decision that seems
42 off to me is the choice of /uar/local/httpd for the
43 default documentroot instead of /var/www or
44 something like /home/http.
46 Speaking of apache, it would be better to use
47 something other than nobody:nobody by default. My
48 suggestion would be web:web and then having the
49 default htdocs living in /home/web. You get *so*
50 much more flexibilty over the execution of apache
51 that way--for example, users with public html
52 directories (as in server/~username) simply have to
53 be added to the web group and chown the files
54 in that directory to user:web instead of having to
55 them be world readable. You also have the ability
56 to enable write access in certain directories for
57 that user/group if dynamic scripts require you to
58 do so.
60 I've noticed that a few distros (Redhat in
61 particlular comes to mind) have modified useradd
62 to create a personal group for a given user. At
63 first glance it may seem odd, but if you give it
64 some thought there really are some instances where
65 it could be a good idea. For one thing, it would
66 allow you to use a umask with +a for groups and
67 then just chown to allow another group to read them
68 instead of having to chown and chmod.
70 That's about it--just a few notes I've made during
71 usage. However, in comparison to all of the
72 things that gentoo does right they are pretty
73 insignificant. Just food for thougt.
75 As a final note, the person that takes the time to
76 create zsh completion scripts for the varioius
77 gentoo scripts (from emerge to rc-update) deserves
78 a special place in heaven.
81 --
82 - Scott J Garner -
83 - Austin, TX - USA -
84 - ICQ: 17348307 AIM: Jungalero -
85 - OPN: MrFab -


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo observations Matthew Kennedy <mbkennedy@×××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo observations Gert Menke <gert@××××××××.net>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo observations Karl Trygve Kalleberg <karltk@×××××××.no>