| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos |
| 2 |
<pchrist@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 4 |
>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would |
| 5 |
>> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) |
| 6 |
>> server profiles. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if |
| 10 |
> they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough for the job |
| 13 |
> and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The problem, I think, is that 'server' is a very generic thing. Am I |
| 16 |
looking for a NAS? A SAN? A web server? A proxy server? An X11 |
| 17 |
application server? A font server? VOIP? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If people who use the server profile are looking for a minimalist |
| 20 |
profile, I think they'd probably be best served with a profile that's |
| 21 |
specifically designed for "we disable everything we can to still wind |
| 22 |
up with a working stage 3. Enable what you need from there." |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That also suggests a way to help automate maintenance; if building a |
| 25 |
stage 3 with the minimal profile fails, then either the package has a |
| 26 |
bug or the profile needs an update...with a strong bias toward the |
| 27 |
former. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
:wq |
Archives