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
I'm going to do something potentially rude and comment on this without
having read the entire thread.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> Anyhow one thing I have figured out is how things can work correctly on
> Linux wihtout -L.: on Linux, the python plugins aren't actua
On 10/11/2012 8:50 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 October 2012 05:35:21 Gregory M. Turner wrote:
On 10/10/2012 9:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
it's not particularly important, but on one hand, the LDFLAGS parsing logic
should not be in the tree ever.
I've no major attachment to it.
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
On Thursday 11 October 2012 05:35:21 Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 9:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 October 2012 23:37:26 Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> >> (1) is worse than (2), but it does have some quasi-legitimate usages.
> >> For example, prefix bootstrap does this (or
On 10/10/2012 9:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2012 23:37:26 Gregory M. Turner wrote:
(1) is worse than (2), but it does have some quasi-legitimate usages.
For example, prefix bootstrap does this (or used to), as do many of the
crossdev-wrapper scripts. I've also resorted
11 matches
Mail list logo
