On Monday 15 October 2012 13:45:22 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile
> > > structure to include a description so that people know the int
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'm strongly in favor of t
Ben Kohler wrote:
> 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.
I'm strongly in favor of this, but of course I am no developer.
//Peter
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
> mar
On Monday 15 October 2012 11:20:19 Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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 implic
On 10/14/2012 09:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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").
M
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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"
On Sunday 14 October 2012 11:42:32 Ben Kohler wrote:
> I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These
> server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
> in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most
> minimal profiles,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
> I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These
> server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
> in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most
> minimal profiles,
I hope this discussion doesn't end when the warnings are removed. These
server profiles are still useless and misleading, they do not need to exist
in their current form. Your previous statement that these are the most
minimal profiles, is not accurate. The base profiles are the most minimal
(no
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
>>
>> +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 w
Markos Chandras schrieb am 12.10.2012 10:08:
>
> +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?
>
If you want a minimal pr
This is why I said that the server profile are no lighter than the base.
It's actually the base PLUS "snmp truetype xml".
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* ar
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras 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
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 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.
Well, support is mainly a matter of people st
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, so
>> that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new use
On 10/11/2012 3:31 PM, Ben Kohler wrote:
There are other ways to achieve a "lighter" system, but that's not really
what this is about. The server profiles are not any lighter than the base
profiles.
To those in favor of keeping some kind of "server" profile around, how
would it differ from the
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras 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
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Markos Chandras 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 act
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
>
>> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why
>> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
>> desire it on many systems. like serve
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM, 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, so
>> that they do not show up in "eselect profile l
There are other ways to achieve a "lighter" system, but that's not really
what this is about. The server profiles are not any lighter than the base
profiles.
To those in favor of keeping some kind of "server" profile around, how
would it differ from the base profile? What would you enable or dis
On 10/11/2012 1:04 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why
you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
desire it on many systems. like servers. the desktop and
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:22:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why
> you think having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly
> desire it on many systems. like servers. the desktop and developer
> profiles are not appropria
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sounds like something to fix rather than punt. i don't know why you think
> having server profiles is "undesirable", but i certainly desire it on many
> systems. like servers. the desktop and developer profiles are not
> appropriate.
I t
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, so
> that they do not show up in "eselect profile list" for new users. As far
> as I know, this server target i
Ben Kohler wrote:
> Thoughts?
+1 for removing noise.
I would like to suggest that the "server" profile variants
(ie default/linux/amd64/10.0/server) be unlisted from profiles.desc, so
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 somewhat
silly, if you look at
28 matches
Mail list logo
