| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> into the 2006.1 profiles. I am looking for suggestions for USE flags to |
| 4 |
> add to these two profiles, so feel free to make suggestions. Please |
| 5 |
> cite some reasoning for why you think each USE flag you recommend should |
| 6 |
> be either enabled or disabled. The profiles are at |
| 7 |
> profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/2006.1/desktop and |
| 8 |
> profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/2006.1/server for you to peruse. They |
| 9 |
> are completely functional profiles at this time. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In the servers profile... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
logrotate would be nice for obvious reasons on servers. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
chroot might be nice, as long as it is not too invasive (requires lots of |
| 16 |
extra configuration of the packages that utilize it). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
My main concern is not really what USE flags need to be added as opposed to |
| 19 |
what USE flags might need to be removed. In my opinion a generic server |
| 20 |
profile needs to be as generic as possible. For example, cups foomatic gpm |
| 21 |
and ldap from dev/2006.1/make.defaults should not go into a generic server |
| 22 |
profile because in some cases they make significant differences in how |
| 23 |
subsequent packages will be configured - samba and apache2 for examples. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
None of my servers have pointing devices, gpm is not only useless in this |
| 26 |
situation, it introduces additional unnecessary maintenance. mailwrapper |
| 27 |
is another example of something that only serves to give me headaches ;) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I noticed you have STAGE1_USE="nptl nptlonly", does that mean that the CHOST |
| 30 |
will need to be changed in stage1 tarballs? |
Archives