1 |
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Am 29.10.2010 14:13, schrieb Petteri Räty: |
3 |
>> On 29.10.2010 15.02, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>>> 2) Furthermore I would like to drop the following use flags from default |
7 |
>>>> IUSE |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>>> -apache2 |
10 |
>>>> -ldap |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>>> A minimal server installation does requires neither apache2 nor ldap |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Although one can install a server without apache or ldap, I'd say the |
15 |
>>> server profile seems the natural choice to have them enabled. |
16 |
>>> If we had the statistics for it, we could check how many people have |
17 |
>>> apache installed with that profile vs not having it. As there's nothing |
18 |
>>> preventing one from having USE="-apache2 -ldap" when required and I |
19 |
>>> don't use the server profiles, I don't really have a strong opinion |
20 |
>>> about this. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> And enabling a use flag should be question of is it wanted when a |
24 |
>> package actually support those flags. On a server when you are |
25 |
>> installing a package with a apache use flag it's certainly possible to |
26 |
>> you would like to have it enabled more often than not. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> Regards, |
29 |
>> Petteri |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>> |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Which raises the question, if those people, who want to install a minimal server will mostly use |
34 |
> apache or something different. And especially for minimal setups, i dont think that apache will be |
35 |
> the first choice, so i agree with the removal of those USE flags from default IUSE. |
36 |
> The profile is intended to have a minimal set of flags, i would call apache an additional optional |
37 |
> flag, not a default option for minimal server setups. |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
Totally agreed! |
41 |
|
42 |
Best regards. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Rafael Goncalves Martins |
46 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
47 |
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/ |