| 1 |
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:02:48 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> We might be talking past each other. Sane but minimal is the target. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should |
| 7 |
> have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in |
| 8 |
> @system - ugh!). The question is whether a minimal/base system should |
| 9 |
> have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one. I just want to |
| 12 |
> make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody |
| 13 |
> and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being |
| 14 |
> removed anyway. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I understand that enabling flags only affects packages if they’re |
| 17 |
installed. I’m just saying that, in my opinion, sane-but-minimal should |
| 18 |
have CUPS disabled because there are plenty of computers that would |
| 19 |
want LibreOffice and/or Chromium installed but not have a printer. They |
| 20 |
need not be servers if the target is simply sane-but-minimal. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Chris |
Archives