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 8A2C4138010 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:07:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACE4EE01BE; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:07:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC40E0027 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:06:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id un3so7641635obb.40 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=HIOAEbMJo7uKehwPxp1LGyP7EivDRKhGmFo6LyL4Xqc=; b=qjaipvU21LAxSfl6LRfFNrtKFt567k76/Y7WqfqDJN3MrmM/P8HrRMnKoDI8wrinm6 yMNnHzrI7+sd54XYrBqAU0rPspqPjh1OMlt1vHhGruzUsrIIr1+/IydwDelCnOJWUW5T XQbtTAg+LcL6h/ONWl+Q8RUrUt+bklXFv7fgKVxceKtPyGBiWzO8Nmdghebo9PH+hbUq pO1t9+HeQAN7laN0oaJzwdn7IV/swykKFq/7+uQxN9NZGnUHYOkfDyIi1qhGbEuzNCQ3 iHnb7c1/e47n0b1SRvoHLBZREpuhnkT3a3lPA0zq2K2i0yiIaYpg4HkQn7yXSxVu/JUg v+ZA== 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 Received: by 10.60.170.200 with SMTP id ao8mr15414857oec.104.1350486408172; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.3.37 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201210150022.51254.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <201210150022.51254.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:06:48 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: removing "server" profile variants from profiles.desc From: Ben Kohler To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54d42c0a215da04cc429e29 X-Archives-Salt: abe6b292-ae0e-448c-add4-dd4346d311ac X-Archives-Hash: b487a7945eb0c559fcb67e180de95d11 --bcaec54d42c0a215da04cc429e29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Frysinger 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 --bcaec54d42c0a215da04cc429e29 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

please stop top posting. =A0you're making a mess of this whole th= read.

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. =A0the= only
marker we had before was implicitly in the name (".../server" and=
".../desktop").
-mike

Sorry about that.=A0
The addition of this extra info about the profiles sounds grea= t, but back to the original issue-- what *is* the intention of the server t= arget? =A0Right now it seems like nothing more than a broken outdated vanit= y title, for people who feel that using a "standard" profile on a= server is icky. =A0No one actually believes that the server target's U= SE flags make any sense, and no one has proposed what they SHOULD be. =A0Al= l that seems to be established is a general feeling "don't take aw= ay our server profiles".

Whether it's time to flat out *remove* those profil= es, I don't know. =A0But if these profiles aren't going to be updat= ed or maintained in any way, I believe that new users should be shielded fr= om them. =A0They are not a viable or sensible choice for ANY new installati= on. =A0In my ideal world ("if I were king"), today I would delist= them from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their immedia= te deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.

-Ben
--bcaec54d42c0a215da04cc429e29--