[gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 566 bytes --]

I would like to suggest that the "server" profile variants
(ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new users.  As far
as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
silly, if you look at its make.defaults.  If this target is being kept
around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from
profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without
presenting it as a viable option for new users.

Thoughts?

-Ben Kohler

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 641 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Peter Stuge]

Ben Kohler wrote:
> Thoughts?

+1 for removing noise.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote:
> I would like to suggest that the "server" profile variants
> (ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
> that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new users.  As far
> as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
> silly, if you look at its make.defaults.  If this target is being kept
> around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from
> profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without
> presenting it as a viable option for new users.

sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why you think 
having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many 
systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer profiles are not 
appropriate.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why you think
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many
> systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer profiles are not
> appropriate.

I think the base profiles generally are appropriate.  Most of the
stuff that I'd consider a value-add on ANY server is already in the
base profile.  Maybe if we dropped ssh from system then having it in a
server profile would make sense.

When I build server-like installs I just use the generic profile as a
starting point.  Servers could do anything.  The software on a LAMP is
going to be way different than the software on a mail server or a DNS
server.  And, if I am going to run a mail server I might want any of
14 varieties of mail-related services.

I could see some use for profiles if they were maintained and designed
so that you could pick the profile, do an emerge -uDN world, and end
up with a "just works" server.  However, that would likely mean having
dozens of them, and unless somebody wants to maintain them I don't see
the point.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote

> sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why
> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
> desire it on many systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer
> profiles are not appropriate.

  If it's going to be kept around, then please get rid of the warning in 
ebuilds.  I'm one of the few people who checks /var/log/portage/elog
regularly.  The server profile is useless because it pollutes
/var/log/portage/elog with a warning that this profile is unmaintained...
***ONCE FOR EVERY LAST SINGLE PACKAGE YOU BUILD***.  If you want a light
profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
in make.conf.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Gregory M. Turner]

On 10/11/2012 1:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
>
>> sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why
>> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
>> desire it on many systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer
>> profiles are not appropriate.
>
> If you want a light
> profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
> make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
> in make.conf.

<popcorn>

-gmt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1355 bytes --]

There are other ways to achieve a "lighter" system, but that's not really
what this is about.  The server profiles are not any lighter than the base
profiles.

To those in favor of keeping some kind of "server" profile around, how
would it differ from the base profile?  What would you enable or disable on
top of the base?  I am pretty sure that the current USE="-perl -python snmp
truetype xml" is not what any of you would suggest.

In my opinion, removing /usr/portage/profiles/targets/server/make.defaults
and having the "server" target apply nothing over the base profiles, and
then dropping the warning from the server profiles, would be a better
situation than where we are now.

-Ben


On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Gregory M. Turner <gmt@malth.us> wrote:

> On 10/11/2012 1:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
>>
>>  sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why
>>> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
>>> desire it on many systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer
>>> profiles are not appropriate.
>>>
>>
>> If you want a light
>> profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
>> make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
>> in make.conf.
>>
>
> <popcorn>
>
> -gmt
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2090 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Gregory M. Turner]

On 10/11/2012 3:31 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
> There are other ways to achieve a "lighter" system, but that's not really
> what this is about.  The server profiles are not any lighter than the base
> profiles.
>
> To those in favor of keeping some kind of "server" profile around, how
> would it differ from the base profile?  What would you enable or disable on
> top of the base?  I am pretty sure that the current USE="-perl -python snmp
> truetype xml" is not what any of you would suggest.
>
> In my opinion, removing /usr/portage/profiles/targets/server/make.defaults
> and having the "server" target apply nothing over the base profiles, and
> then dropping the warning from the server profiles, would be a better
> situation than where we are now.
>
> -Ben

That seems pretty reasonable.

Another possibility, I suppose, would be to combine Rich's idea with 
yours and get:

   base -> minimal -> server (noop)

Also super-easy if we just build the above cascade, take what's in 
server, move it into minimal, git rid of the awful warning, and call it 
fixed.

At least by clarifying what is meant by "server", we might inspire 
someone to contribute more enhancements later.

Kind of the opposite of your original proposal, Ben :P

At least we've established broad consensus that the warning should be 
silenced.

-gmt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Markos Chandras]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
>
>> sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why
>> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
>> desire it on many systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer
>> profiles are not appropriate.
>
>   If it's going to be kept around, then please get rid of the warning in
> ebuilds.  I'm one of the few people who checks /var/log/portage/elog
> regularly.  The server profile is useless because it pollutes
> /var/log/portage/elog with a warning that this profile is unmaintained...
> ***ONCE FOR EVERY LAST SINGLE PACKAGE YOU BUILD***.  If you want a light
> profile, I suggest doing what I do... start your USE variable in
> make.conf with "-*", and add any flags you need, either in package.use or
> in make.conf.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>

We can remove the warning. There is nothing really wrong with these profiles.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Markos Chandras]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote:
>> I would like to suggest that the "server" profile variants
>> (ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
>> that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new users.  As far
>> as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
>> silly, if you look at its make.defaults.  If this target is being kept
>> around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from
>> profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without
>> presenting it as a viable option for new users.
>
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why you think
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many
> systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer profiles are not
> appropriate.
> -mike

+1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
"home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
profiles anyway?

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
> profiles anyway?

Looking at the actual profiles themselves, using server vs the base
profile makes these changes:
USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"

So, you're getting less perl/python support, but you're getting snmp,
truetype, and xml.

I think overall you'd get a more minimal setup with the base profile,
and if you really want -perl/-python you could just set those in your
USE.  I'd think that your home box would be more likely to benefit
from perl/python support on packages than having snmp support.  But,
to each his own...

I'd be all for there being an actual minimal profile, but I don't
think server really is that.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Markos Chandras]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
>> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
>> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
>> profiles anyway?
>
> Looking at the actual profiles themselves, using server vs the base
> profile makes these changes:
> USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
>
> So, you're getting less perl/python support, but you're getting snmp,
> truetype, and xml.
>
> I think overall you'd get a more minimal setup with the base profile,
> and if you really want -perl/-python you could just set those in your
> USE.  I'd think that your home box would be more likely to benefit
> from perl/python support on packages than having snmp support.  But,
> to each his own...
>
> I'd be all for there being an actual minimal profile, but I don't
> think server really is that.
>
> Rich
>

Removing python and perl support is good enough to justify that this
profile is "minimal" ;)
Moreover, snmp is something you really want in 24/7 boxes. Anyhow, I
see no reason to remove these profiles just
because they are 'similar' to the base profile. But I do agree to
remove the ewarn message as it a bit annoying if you
update such systems often enough.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
>> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
>> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
>> profiles anyway?
>
> Looking at the actual profiles themselves, using server vs the base
> profile makes these changes:
> USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
>

perl and python have not been enabled in the default/linux profile for
some time now:

RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/make.defaults,v

revision 1.15
date: 2011-10-05 15:22:13 -0400;  author: darkside;  state: Exp;
lines: +2 -2;  commitid: 2e764e8cae624567;
Remove USE={python,perl} from default profile, as discussed/announced.
Bug 250179

Disabling those flags in the server profile is redundant.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1864 bytes --]

This is why I said that the server profile are no lighter than the base.
 It's actually the base PLUS "snmp truetype xml".

My original suggestion of hiding or removing the server profiles was based
on the assumption that no one wants to maintain it.  The server profiles
*in their current state* are silly & undesirable, in my view.  The server
target has not been touched in almost 2 years, and most of the people using
it are doing so based on false assumptions.

If it is to remain in its current state, I think it should at least be
removed from the .desc listing.  If we have a plan to make the server
profiles useful again, as a purposeful set of flags applied against the
base, then keeping these profiles listed is great.  I would use a server
profile myself, in such case.

-Ben

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
> >> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
> >> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
> >> profiles anyway?
> >
> > Looking at the actual profiles themselves, using server vs the base
> > profile makes these changes:
> > USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
> >
>
> perl and python have not been enabled in the default/linux profile for
> some time now:
>
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/make.defaults,v
>
> revision 1.15
> date: 2011-10-05 15:22:13 -0400;  author: darkside;  state: Exp;
> lines: +2 -2;  commitid: 2e764e8cae624567;
> Remove USE={python,perl} from default profile, as discussed/announced.
> Bug 250179
>
> Disabling those flags in the server profile is redundant.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2480 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Daniel Pielmeier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
> 
> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
> profiles anyway?
> 

If you want a minimal profile you don't need the server profile.

"ln -s ${PORTDIR}/profiles/default/linux/${ARCH}/10.0 make.profile"
gives you a minimal profile.

-- 
Regards
Daniel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Markos Chandras]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Pielmeier <billie@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
>>
>> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
>> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
>> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
>> profiles anyway?
>>
>
> If you want a minimal profile you don't need the server profile.
>
> "ln -s ${PORTDIR}/profiles/default/linux/${ARCH}/10.0 make.profile"
> gives you a minimal profile.
>
> --
> Regards
> Daniel
>

I removed the ewarn message from the amd64/10.0/server profile. If
nobody objects I will remove it from the x86 as well (CC'ing x86 to
get their attention)

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed.  These
server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
in their current form.  Your previous statement that these are the most
minimal profiles, is not accurate.  The base profiles are the most minimal
(non-selinux) ones.

-Ben

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Pielmeier <billie@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
> >>
> >> +1. I want these profiles to *staty*. I am using this profile on my
> >> "home boxes". It is the most minimal profile as the rest of the
> >> profiles pull in too much useless stuff. What is wrong with these
> >> profiles anyway?
> >>
> >
> > If you want a minimal profile you don't need the server profile.
> >
> > "ln -s ${PORTDIR}/profiles/default/linux/${ARCH}/10.0 make.profile"
> > gives you a minimal profile.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> > Daniel
> >
>
> I removed the ewarn message from the amd64/10.0/server profile. If
> nobody objects I will remove it from the x86 as well (CC'ing x86 to
> get their attention)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1841 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Markos Chandras]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Ben Kohler <bkohler@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed.  These
> server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
> in their current form.  Your previous statement that these are the most
> minimal profiles, is not accurate.  The base profiles are the most minimal
> (non-selinux) ones.
>
> -Ben
>
>
You need to make a plan then, for smooth transition from server->base
profile. Preferably:

1) a news item explaining why this change is necessary, what useflags
do I need to add to make.conf to keep 'base' and 'server' profiles
compatible (so I don't have to recompile a bunch of packages just
because the default flags changed)
2) Make the server profile fatal when trying to emerge a package when
this profile is selected ( add a profile.bashrc file that simply dies
during pkg_setup)
3) Remove it after N * 30 days

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Sunday 14 October 2012 11:42:32 Ben Kohler wrote:
> I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed.  These
> server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
> in their current form.  Your previous statement that these are the most
> minimal profiles, is not accurate.  The base profiles are the most minimal
> (non-selinux) ones.

please stop top posting.  you're making a mess of this whole thread.

sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to 
include a description so that people know the intention of each one.  the only 
marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server" and 
".../desktop").
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
> include a description so that people know the intention of each one.  the only
> marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server" and
> ".../desktop").

++

This seems like a common problem I run into with software at work.
Everybody knows what the purpose of the application is, the problem is
that no two people agree on it.

Defining the reason something exists usually makes everything else
fairly obvious.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Zac Medico]

On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to 
> include a description so that people know the intention of each one.  the only 
> marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server" and 
> ".../desktop").

Maybe put a metadata.xml file in the profile directory. Then you can
list the description, maintainer, and anything else you want in there.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure
> > to include a description so that people know the intention of each one. 
> > the only marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server"
> > and ".../desktop").
> 
> Maybe put a metadata.xml file in the profile directory. Then you can
> list the description, maintainer, and anything else you want in there.

SGTM.  then we just update eselect to parse that if it's available.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 701 bytes --]

On Monday 15 October 2012 13:45:22 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile
> > > structure to include a description so that people know the intention
> > > of each one. the only marker we had before was implicitly in the name
> > > (".../server" and ".../desktop").
> > 
> > Maybe put a metadata.xml file in the profile directory. Then you can
> > list the description, maintainer, and anything else you want in there.
> 
> SGTM.  then we just update eselect to parse that if it's available.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/440220
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1400 bytes --]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> please stop top posting.  you're making a mess of this whole thread.
>
> sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
> include a description so that people know the intention of each one.  the
> only
> marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server" and
> ".../desktop").
> -mike
>

Sorry about that.

The addition of this extra info about the profiles sounds great, but back
to the original issue-- what *is* the intention of the server target?
 Right now it seems like nothing more than a broken outdated vanity title,
for people who feel that using a "standard" profile on a server is icky.
 No one actually believes that the server target's USE flags make any
sense, and no one has proposed what they SHOULD be.  All that seems to be
established is a general feeling "don't take away our server profiles".

Whether it's time to flat out *remove* those profiles, I don't know.  But
if these profiles aren't going to be updated or maintained in any way, I
believe that new users should be shielded from them.  They are not a viable
or sensible choice for ANY new installation.  In my ideal world ("if I were
king"), today I would delist them from profiles.desc, and send out a news
item warning of their immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months
from now.

-Ben

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1909 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Peter Stuge]

Ben Kohler wrote:
> In my ideal world ("if I were king"), today I would delist them
> from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
> immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.

I'm strongly in favor of this, but of course I am no developer.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Markos Chandras]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>> In my ideal world ("if I were king"), today I would delist them
>> from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
>> immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.
>
> I'm strongly in favor of this, but of course I am no developer.
>
>
> //Peter
>

This is what will happen when someone finds the time to write this
news item ( as I already explained ... )

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

11.10.2012 23:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 October 2012 14:56:11 Ben Kohler wrote:
>> I would like to suggest that the "server" profile variants
>> (ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
>> that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new users.  As far
>> as I know, this server target is unmaintained, undesirable, and somewhat
>> silly, if you look at its make.defaults.  If this target is being kept
>> around just so we don't break older setups, then simply removing from
>> profiles.desc would allow these systems to keep using the profile, without
>> presenting it as a viable option for new users.
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt.  i don't know why you think 
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many 
> systems.  like servers.  the desktop and developer profiles are not 
> appropriate.
> -mike
Indeed. Hardened server profile does not fit in all cases, some
non-hardened server profile should exist, BUT without this warning(if
it's usable, of course), and probably with better support.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Indeed. Hardened server profile does not fit in all cases, some
> non-hardened server profile should exist, BUT without this warning(if
> it's usable, of course), and probably with better support.

Well, support is mainly a matter of people stepping up to make it
happen, as with all things.  I think that lack of interest in this
profile in general is at the heart of the problem.  I see no reason to
go killing it, but making it useful is a matter of those with an
interest getting together and deciding what it should be.

Rich