| 1 |
Michael Stewart (vericgar) wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I am not against removing the USE-flag as long as apache-2.0 is masked |
| 4 |
> out, but I highly doubt this is what anybody wants, as it becomes even |
| 5 |
> more complicated to now use apache-2.0. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Also, if apache-2.0 is masked, many of the add-on modules would need to |
| 8 |
> be masked out as well. It becomes a nightmare to manage all this (trust |
| 9 |
> me, I've been there, being the apache maintainer!) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I am in no way suggesting that apache-2.0 should be masked! |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What I am suggesting is that anyone who installs a server needs to know what |
| 14 |
the heck they are doing, and set up their own system for apache1 -vs- |
| 15 |
apache2 (or lighthttpd or zope or aolserver or whatever) _after_ the |
| 16 |
initial system install. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Call me a purist, non system packages don't belong in the system profile, |
| 19 |
and in cases such as this the administrator should be making the choices, |
| 20 |
not the system profile. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I would rather see stacked profiles: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
server |
| 25 |
server/apache1 |
| 26 |
server/apache2 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
etc... With the "server" profile being a bare bones system profile. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
But anything would be better than the current bizarro desktop profile, chock |
| 31 |
full of crap. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives