Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 While I tend towards the cleaner design, not the don't fix what isn't *broken* approach -- I'm fine either way. But I think the handbook or some tool should obnoxiously spit the flags (and a minor justification for each flag and/or the set of flags) of each profile in your face when you are at the set a profile step of the installation. This way it can clarify that the user might want to disable some of the profile-enabled flags. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlD+R9cACgkQRtClrXBQc7WCUgD+MyFwwjQ9BQ8lakIIyAoTNxye Z+6HQ3BYvJEZjlRJYwYA/2Y5EEX3gjq2KzhS1q8+nSa7CEycd2jJo6QtUZxjFk88 =+/+5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 January 2013 03:28, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch admiraln...@gmail.com wrote: The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. And this is the problem with having the default profile be really minimal. It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are much more painful to override. No offense, but that's nonsense. You override it the exact same way. Indeed, you're correct. It is not necessary to do what Dustin suggested to disable package use-defaults - if you set -foo in make.conf it will apply to all packages even if it is a use-default. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote: While I tend towards the cleaner design, not the don't fix what isn't *broken* approach -- I'm fine either way. But I think the handbook or some tool should obnoxiously spit the flags (and a minor justification for each flag and/or the set of flags) of each profile in your face when you are at the set a profile step of the installation. This way it can clarify that the user might want to disable some of the profile-enabled flags. Not really sure that adds much value. A few users might want to disable everything, but just as many if not more are likely to want to enable stuff that is disabled. Should we therefore list all the flags on the system and which ones are enabled and disabled? I guess we could, but it is a REALLY long list. In practice I find that the way I tend to use USE flags is that I just ignore them until something unexpected happens, and then change them. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/01/13 13:12, Rich Freeman wrote: As a long-time user, I can't put myself in a first-time user's frame of reference. But it would be useful for me whenever I'm installing Gentoo on a new device, if I were able to have the profile's USE-flags listed. (I know I can find them elsewhere, but it would still be convenient for me.) - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlD+jtUACgkQRtClrXBQc7XKvAD+L3kf/+txOUTGGTwcPDnZTDsb v630SlBCE9uyoEx0SzgA/3rHGYYkGQ7w9srZ8LjFc3S3iZ0WV3OLOPw9QyRePr3P =OcXI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:12:06 -0500 as excerpted: Should we therefore list all the flags on the system and which ones are enabled and disabled? I guess we could, but it is a REALLY long list. In practice I find that the way I tend to use USE flags is that I just ignore them until something unexpected happens, and then change them. The one thing I wish the handbook had taught, way back when I started (and I read the handbook well enough that even before I had a system up and running on gentoo... 2004.0/amd64 wasn't quite ready for NPTL and I blocked on it, but 2004.1 worked... I was helping others who apparently had /not/ read it so well! this wasn't there and AFAIK still isn't), was... If in doubt, leave it out. Remember, because gentoo is build-from- source, every package installed has a much higher cost in terms of continuing upgrades over time, than on a binary distro. If you aren't sure you're going to use it, or will only use it maybe a couple times a year, strongly consider omitting it, thus avoiding the upgrade cost. You can always install it later if you find you REALLY need it. That applies to both packages and USE flags (which often bring in extra packages) on your system. One of the first things I realized out of the gate was that keeping both gnome and kde installed wasn't going to be practical for me, and I preferred the better configurability of kde so I quickly dropped gnome. But over the years my system has gotten progressively leaner as I trimmed this and that, one thing at a time, because there really IS a continuing maintenance cost to every single package installed, ESPECIALLY on the ~arch systems I run where the package churn is much higher, even MORE so for those (like me) that like to run stuff like kde prereleases from the overlays. KDE for example has two feature releases a year and updates every month, basically 12 releases a year. For those running the pre- releases, it's 16, as for the couple months before a feature release they're on a two-week update cycle. For those running its pre-releases, KDE *BY* *ITSELF* is thus several hundred package upgrade builds 16 times a year (plus -rX bumps if any). I've trimmed my kde to ~170 packages at last upgrade (and just trimmed a couple more after that, deciding with dolphin as my GUI fileman and firefox as my default browser I no longer needed konqueror or its addons, so I think I'm down to 168 per kde upgrade here, now). With my six-core bulldozer and PORTAGE_TMPDIR in tmpfs, that's actually reasonable. I wouldn't expect ordinary gentooers to go to the lengths I have to reduce system bloat while keeping functionality I actually use, as the system set I've negated is there fore a reason and USE=-* is discouraged for a reason -- it TAKES someone with quite some experience and knowledge to properly navigate those sorts of things. But if anything, that's all the MORE reason there should be a minimal profile available, for those who want as lean an installation as possible. The more stuff turned on the worse it gets, especially for USE flags on system set packages and the packages they in turn drag in, multiple levels down. That's actually why I eventually killed my system set, too much (including xorg-server and kdelibs) was being pulled into it by the USE flags, and for safety reasons, portage puts much stronger parallel-emerge- jobs limitations on @system and its deps, many packages of which are piddly little things that kept portage running alone at 1.00 load average on a six-core! So the smaller the set of profile-enabled USE flags and the smaller the @system set, the better, and a minimal profile that people can add what they need to, would ideally be the recommended profile for most users. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:06:29PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote As a long-time user, I can't put myself in a first-time user's frame of reference. But it would be useful for me whenever I'm installing Gentoo on a new device, if I were able to have the profile's USE-flags listed. (I know I can find them elsewhere, but it would still be convenient for me.) Maybe a note in the install docs to run... emerge --info | grep ^USE -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
[gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On 1/21/2013 02:01, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:18 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want. Anything else seems a bit too random. This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile to start building from. Too many people are doing this. -* will still be required by those same people for EAPI 1 package defaults. Cleaning a profile won't change that. The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. -- ♫Dustin
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch admiraln...@gmail.com wrote: The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. And this is the problem with having the default profile be really minimal. It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are much more painful to override. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:51:54AM -0600, Dustin C. Hatch wrote The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. Have you heard the old joke about how an elephant is actually a mouse designed by a committee? The same thing applies to distro bloat. Some people want feature A, others want feature B, and others want feature C. The final result is a distro with features A *AND* B *AND* C. I was originally drawn to Gentoo with the Gentoo Ricer atitude. But now it's the fine-grained control of USE flags that makes me stay with Gentoo. I think we may have to admit that one size does not fit all. There are just too many individual scenarios. A truly minimal build should be sufficient to boot to a text console, and have networking and portage to be able to build further up the chain. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:28:47PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch admiraln...@gmail.com wrote: The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. And this is the problem with having the default profile be really minimal. It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are much more painful to override. I don't think changing the profile is the solution. I doubt that dozens of maintainers will immediately unset unwanted default USE flags simply because the default profile is made more bloated. As I mentioned in a previous message, my personal experience is that it's actually less work to start with -*, and add as required, rather than to use defaults and then hack and slash at the unwanted stuff. Mind you, as per my sig, I run ICEWM and leave the extra ram for useful applications. We may simply have to admit that we can't please everybody. I suggest a minimal profile instead. It would boot to a text console, and have networking and portage, allowing you to build further. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On 22 January 2013 03:28, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch admiraln...@gmail.com wrote: The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER. And this is the problem with having the default profile be really minimal. It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are much more painful to override. No offense, but that's nonsense. You override it the exact same way. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On 22 January 2013 10:36, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: I think we may have to admit that one size does not fit all. There are just too many individual scenarios. A truly minimal build should be sufficient to boot to a text console, and have networking and portage to be able to build further up the chain. It's not something we may have to admit. It's been the Gentoo philosophy from the very start. That's why we have useflags and so on. Gentoo is based on choice and customization. The guiding idea for the base profile is that it should result in a lean but functional system, with defaults that the majority of users would need. Maybe we have erred on the side of inclusiveness in the past, and now is the time to move more towards minimalism, as we have a new set of 13.0 profiles being sculpted into shape. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
[gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like
On 17/01/2013 19:35, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: my 2ct: * dri and cups should probably be moved to desktop profile * pppd is a local useflag and should be enabled by default in the capi ebuild Definitely agree. Can we make these changes? Cheers, Dirkjan +1
