How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
I think we agree that the last state of the server profiles was not useful. So let's discuss what would be useful. For the medium-term future, not for this current step now. > > Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp, > fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads > disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably > want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the > server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages). > 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 * for apache2 and mysql see below, should be off imho even in a server profile... * caps should be discussed in a wider context (portage) > > Many have said that a "server" is something very generic, so is > "desktop". I think profiles were invented to make things easier and > safer for users, so now we 're doing it for "desktop" users but people > who want to build a server box have to scratch their heads from the > first moment. I'm fine with that if our community is fine with that. > Sure a server is something generic, too. However, since you mentioned mysql above, how about a postgres server? Or a web server using a daemon different from apache? :) This is why I think (as others) a server profile should basically be the same as a minimal profile. And then, defining a minimal profile separate from the base profile does not make too much sense. Rather, carefully try to move all specific stuff out of the base profile. [ That said, CVS is such a pain, I'll not do anything like this again before we finish the GIT migration... :D ] -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59:11AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote > Sure a server is something generic, too. However, since you mentioned > mysql above, how about a postgres server? Or a web server using a > daemon different from apache? :) > > This is why I think (as others) a server profile should basically be > the same as a minimal profile. And then, defining a minimal profile > separate from the base profile does not make too much sense. Rather, > carefully try to move all specific stuff out of the base profile. If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a "basic server" machine. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or > ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a > "basic server" machine. Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some version of Python installed, but setting USE="-*" removes all support for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andreas K. Huettel 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
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with > > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or > > ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a > > "basic server" machine. > > Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some > version of Python installed, but setting USE="-*" removes all support > for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do > that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > My thought is that base should have just enough enabled for stage3 to be self-hosting. Moving existing base to something like "common" would retain a profile for that "most people would want this" set.
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:09:29AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote > On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes > wrote: > > > If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with > > > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or > > > ebuilds break. That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a > > > "basic server" machine. > > > > Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some > > version of Python installed, but setting USE="-*" removes all support > > for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do > > that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks. > > My thought is that base should have just enough enabled for stage3 to be > self-hosting. Moving existing base to something like "common" would retain > a profile for that "most people would want this" set. On a lark, I once tried the "default/linux/x86/10.0" profile for a re-install on my netbook without "-*". I soon ended up with more "-" entries in make.conf and package.use, than I have add-on entries when using "-*". And I was only half-way through installing the apps I normally use. I went back to "-*". -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On 23:47 Sat 19 Jan , Walter Dnes wrote: > ... > On a lark, I once tried the "default/linux/x86/10.0" profile for a > re-install on my netbook without "-*". I soon ended up with more "-" > entries in make.conf and package.use, than I have add-on entries when > using "-*". And I was only half-way through installing the apps I > normally use. I went back to "-*". > I have to admit that I've been using USE="-* " in my server boxes for a long time now, however it's a nasty hack and I wish for a better alternative. Profiles exist for reasons, bypassing them may break things unless you know what you're doing and you're active in Gentoo's community (so that have knowledge of certain bugs/news/discussions in mailing lists etc.). The problem is not with experienced users who can find their way. It is with newcomers. I like the idea of having minimal base profiles and on top of them desktop and/or server profiles enabling certain things. Because newcomers will not have to scratch their heads (as I wrote previously) from the first moment, if they enable one of them. Of course, even experienced users sometimes may become frustrated, when doing everything manually. (-* etc.). And things become more complex as time passes (new EAPIs, new portage features). This thread is about suggestions on better server profiles and need to think about that. For example,I would like to see a server profile with iptables and iproute2 on the system set. Maybe also a logger or a metapackage pulling certain packages (eg. bind-tools and nfs-utils). But it's just me, and it's a matter of taste/experience. I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if they could respond here. Just, let's don't forget that profiles are not only about USE flags (because most discussions have been about the latter). -- Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist ) ( Gentoo Lisp Project ) pgppwHH1awD7E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
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. I haven't yet experimented with creating my own profiles. I might still. Ben, binary distributions like debian without cups? Forget about it. They can't manage two differently compiled binary packages of e.g. samba, so guess if they will have a samba without printing support? ;) //Peter pgpflDxc5R_rc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge 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. > > Ben, binary distributions like debian without cups? Forget about it. > They can't manage two differently compiled binary packages of e.g. > samba, so guess if they will have a samba without printing support? ;) I know, I am an idealist. Guess why I keep coming back to Gentoo... -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:18 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge 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. Remember that we can also modify USE_ORDER to specifically drop profile flags *or* package-default flags, but not necessarily both. Maybe this is something that should be brought "above the table" and documented. It's a lot harder to shoot yourself in the foot by just dropping profile flags, but keeping package defaults. Of course, that adds another factor to the USE=dri in profile versus package-default discussion, too. -Ben Kohler
