Gentoo Archives: gentoo-releng

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-releng@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: Feature Requests for 2006.1
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:05:58
In Reply to: [gentoo-releng] Re: Feature Requests for 2006.1 by Mikey
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 09:34 -0600, Mikey wrote:
> logrotate would be nice for obvious reasons on servers
The only package that uses this correctly is squid, so I'd prefer not to add it.
> chroot might be nice, as long as it is not too invasive (requires lots of > extra configuration of the packages that utilize it).
This would be a bit much.
> My main concern is not really what USE flags need to be added as opposed to > what USE flags might need to be removed. In my opinion a generic server > profile needs to be as generic as possible. For example, cups foomatic gpm > and ldap from dev/2006.1/make.defaults should not go into a generic server > profile because in some cases they make significant differences in how > subsequent packages will be configured - samba and apache2 for examples.
I would remove gpm, but the others are very unlikely. The purpose here would be to create something that is actually usable as a default. You're more than welcome to customize it yourself, and are expected to do so. Just like how the default USE under the 2006.0 and 2006.1/desktop profiles have lots of things some people won't want (both gnome and kde, for example), it is intended to enable support that most people would want, while still remaining somewhat minimal.
> None of my servers have pointing devices, gpm is not only useless in this > situation, it introduces additional unnecessary maintenance. mailwrapper > is another example of something that only serves to give me headaches ;)
Again, just because none of *your* servers do not have pointing devices does not make it an accurate general statement. My main goal here is to keep all of the desktop USE flags out of the profile. In this case, I can definitely see a use for gpm on a server, unlike gnome or xmms.
> I noticed you have STAGE1_USE="nptl nptlonly", does that mean that the CHOST > will need to be changed in stage1 tarballs?
Actually, I'm building this currently thinking that glibc 2.4 would be used, which is only nptl. I am not going to be building another set of no-nptl stages on x86. The 2006.0 stages will be considered *it* for building on any non-nptl system without using hardened stages. Of course, any and all of this is likely to change after further discussion with solar and the rest of the hardened/server/infra guys. Honestly, I don't want people to focus on the server profile as much as what really concerns *me* which is the desktop setup that will be used for building the next LiveCD set. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
[gentoo-releng] Re: Re: Feature Requests for 2006.1 MIkey <mikey@×××××××××××.com>