1 |
On 31/07/2017 18:30, R0b0t1 wrote: |
2 |
>> The problem i see is that admin. is not free to change the packages |
3 |
>> set, that is dictated by a profile. -- Like i have pointed out, once i |
4 |
>> tried to remove SSH (for the example, so that here can be another |
5 |
>> package, and it was the first (base?) profile), on next system update, |
6 |
>> it returned and got compiled installed. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
> I found https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-963412-start-0.html by |
9 |
> searching for "remove profile package gentoo." |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Admittedly I don't know why there is a requirement for an SSH client |
12 |
> and server, but I can attest that most distributions ship with them. |
13 |
|
14 |
A large chunk (possibly even more than 50%) will be servers and VMs that |
15 |
are headless with no keyboard? If it's a VM or in a data centre |
16 |
somewhere, you can't even touch it, so there's a hard requirement right |
17 |
there twice. |
18 |
|
19 |
With so many installs requiring sshd is why it is there by default, and |
20 |
it's in @system so that you have to confirm you want it unmerged. |
21 |
Removing sshd is one of those things that must really NEVER happen by |
22 |
accident or by typo. |
23 |
|
24 |
So you have a situation where a sizeable chunk of installs need it and |
25 |
it really does no harm to have it. Don't run the server if you don't |
26 |
want it. The whole installed package is less than 6M. The portage tree |
27 |
by contrast is 733M and consumes 170,000 inodes. And that is a huge |
28 |
chunk out of any filesystem! |
29 |
|
30 |
There could be many reasons why portage doesn't have mixins (that's how |
31 |
you'd best implement user-selectable @systems), and one of them is for |
32 |
certain - no dev has had that itch bad enough yet to want to scratch it. |
33 |
And maybe they just don't feel like dealing with the deluge of |
34 |
complaints and NOTABUGs reported as bugs. |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Alan McKinnon |
39 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |