From: solar <solar@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:18:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1142367534.25069.67.camel@onyx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1142365861.21388.30.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net>
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:51 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 14:27 -0500, solar wrote:
> > You cant really do a server profile so far nested within the
> > default-linux profiles. The flags will be just wrong.
> Have you verified this or are you just assuming?
took a quick peek and I know how default-linux is maintained. Stuff
gets added on a whim to upper levels.
> > Also a server is not something you should be switching profiles every 6
> > months.
>
> This I definitely agree with, with the exception that I am specifically
> looking to create a profile set that *is* changed every release. The
> main difference here would be that profiles would be deprecated/removed
> at a *much* slower rate.
While I can semi agree with you here. If we do it. It should either be
a profile that does not change in terms of being deprecated unless
there is a real ABI change or one that is an annual profile.
> > If you are serious about a server profile I'd suggest dropping what you
> > are thinking now. Lets have a meeting (hardened + server + infra +
> > releng ) folks and do it right together.
>
> I'm not sure what either Infra or Hardened would have to do with
> "default-linux" stuff, except that their input would be very valued as
> they would be experienced in these matters.
Reason I say this is that time and time again the idea of server
profiles have been brought up. It's a task I've been willing/wanting to
take on and work with teams.
But in the end the result has always been that the
hardened profile is suitable/ideal for servers and that adding an
explicit server profile was opted against. Now by you creating one you
are effectively setting precedence of what a server profile should be.
> I have no problem with
> having some sort of meeting. My primary reason for the profile is to
> keep all of the "cruft" from dev-lang/php out of the desktop profiles
> and to keep the gnome and kde stuff out of the server profile. I *know*
> that they're not perfect or even what is necessarily desired, which was
> the point of including all of the profile stuff in the original email.
understood. Heads up however that the (PHP + portage + QA) teams have
been working together all morning on the best way to solve that bug. So
a creative solution might be right around the corner.
-peace
--
solar <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-14 20:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-14 16:41 [gentoo-releng] Feature Requests for 2006.1 Chris Gianelloni
2006-03-14 19:00 ` Sven Vermeulen
2006-03-14 19:06 ` Andrew Gaffney
2006-03-14 19:27 ` solar
2006-03-14 19:51 ` Chris Gianelloni
2006-03-14 20:18 ` solar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1142367534.25069.67.camel@onyx \
--to=solar@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox