From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2E9138010 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 972B421C009; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:48:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBE7E0262 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:48:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [91.220.220.251] (pinkbyte.micronet-rostov.ru [91.220.220.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pinkbyte) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6545633D86A for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:48:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50781128.4040000@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:46:32 +0400 From: Sergey Popov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.7) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/10.0.7 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc References: <201210111522.17665.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201210111522.17665.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC9340462CF28AB13E8584F60" X-Archives-Salt: d28ea61e-d256-4c0a-bc24-6b30bcc9871c X-Archives-Hash: 03f9235295c2f8478f5569177fd69148 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC9340462CF28AB13E8584F60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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, s= o >> 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 somewh= at >> 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, wit= hout >> presenting it as a viable option for new users. > sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why you th= ink=20 > having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on m= any=20 > systems. like servers. the desktop and developer profiles are not=20 > 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. --------------enigC9340462CF28AB13E8584F60 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQeBEuAAoJECo/aRed9267jSYIAKqzydG9RzscCkV5xX8bcinx HqQ7cq02GrRsgfEmpxM4nJMPWGhWtQC7hZ18vioyx7GtdLoUns9zzSvA9szDnA05 zi3jVzRlNOEA+OoiP9G2wo/829RK33+oI4melEfducHEjrr5p2PugpFgxz/vWG7O O20xaGvz8G5fGEQGjScoRmdNNTOzn9V6mN9mcJdjly9KjE0Klx7scVcU3vSzMn7J P+//JDhTPBp1roo5Jc6+JCv/tdCPoiCtnRdE1mpF7kRxN3cYawZ5EjaDpkDKEp2k blrPGOx18gwtzvcUvUjF5o2gmnFp8gTLvlJynyyokN9LrDhUkEU2snxJv0VNnjw= =L9Fj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC9340462CF28AB13E8584F60--