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.