Re: [gentoo-server] Binary packages without development files

[Mike Culbertson]

On Monday 29 March 2004 4:45 am, Daniel wrote:
> - From the depths of my memory I thinks this was mentioned before
> (gentoo-dev ages ago maybe). The main counter argument is that include
> headers and static libraries will not adequately forfill the dependency
> requirements of a lot of other packages.
>
> Implementing this for binary packages only seems pretty safe to me until
> some person attempts an emerge on the server machine and finds the
> dependency header files and libraries are not present.
>
> Saw the bug report. Probably a touch brief. I may attempt to spell out the
> requirements/ scope a bit more although maybe not today. Feel free to
> continue to express the scope on the bug report too (save portage peoples
> looking around as to where these requirements are coming from).
>
> In an embedded environment saving storage space is pretty essential however
> on a server surely there is a bit more space to storage space to play with.
> I counted 300MB worth of includes and static libs on mine which quite small
> comparted to the HDD size. Just my 2c (300MB) worth.

Very true, 300MB is not a huge amount of space given modern disk size.   The 
real motivation is not so much just to clear disk space, but is to comletely 
restrict the contents of every server, particularly public and/or secured 
machines. Specifically, on a front-end webserver I am working on completely 
removing any build capabilities.  The idea is to make the box as unusable as 
possible to an intruder in the event it is compromised.  Having a fully 
stocked development environment on a public server just is not necessary 
outside of the scope of Gentoo itself, and if the machine does not build it's 
own software then even that need is removed.  All that is left over are the 
headers, docs, static libs, etc, which I am correcting now.

Also, in regard to the make.conf FEATURES options, I don't see 
noman.noinfo,nodoc,etc listed in the mapage or in the site docs. Are there 
some undocumented features or am I looking in the wrong spot? (using portage 
2.0.50-r1)

Thanks for all the great responses, btw :)


- Mike Culbertson