From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E89Lz-0006wH-At for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:28:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7P4Qb7c011321; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:26:37 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7P4P9Re010044 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:25:10 GMT Received: from ip68-102-201-166.ks.ok.cox.net ([68.102.201.166] helo=[10.3.1.3]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1E89Ji-00061D-VQ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:26:19 +0000 Message-ID: <430D4885.7040001@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:26:45 -0500 From: Lance Albertson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050731) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] crap use flags in the profiles References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <200508242050.58465.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050825012700.GE1701@nightcrawler> In-Reply-To: <20050825012700.GE1701@nightcrawler> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig28F20A225512A04F5DA4519D" X-Archives-Salt: 87398a82-ef9a-40e8-9cd1-5235b0c038c5 X-Archives-Hash: 02977bfe9426c7c9f599b567b9009e94 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig28F20A225512A04F5DA4519D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian Harring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:50:58PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>On Wednesday 24 August 2005 08:04 pm, Brian Harring wrote: >> >>>Again, returning to the USE="-*" arguement, yes, they can go that >>>route. It's also kind of a crappy arguement dodging out of the fact that >>>progressive bloat going into what is effectively a base release >>>profile, when subprofiles would be better suited. >> >>not sure what you mean by 'progressive bloat' ... most of those flags have >>been there since before i was a dev (so like before the 1.2 release) >> >>the default profile has always been a 'desktop' target and really i think >>that's OK by me > > Reasons against sticking a level of indirection in? > More then willing to assume I've been a tool and missed it, but with > cascaded profiles there really isn't a good arguement against tagging > a level in so that anyone after it can just use minimal, or derive a > server profile off of it. Generally the hardened profile has been considered the most 'server' based profile we have. Granted, if you don't want the extra goodies you get with a hardened system, that is an issue, but this is one option we have. I look at their profile as a great model for the server end of things. -- Lance Albertson Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net --------------enig28F20A225512A04F5DA4519D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDDUiHQW+hXSf0t0IRAtL8AJ9p5j7zz2OmcsEVH33sfKSLZgT7ZACgpUai M5JbZ2s/KBZkIHySL2em4J8= =1jCA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig28F20A225512A04F5DA4519D-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list