On 2004.05.30 20:48, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Willem Riede wrote:
> Why? I've read the barrage of mails this triggered, and I see
> absolutely no benefit. I can understand the desire to have a more
> minimal "minimal" install package set, and the packages that would be
> in that set will probably all sit on the first CD. But that doesn't
> translate into the need to limit the size of the distribution.
For companies who need a "base" to start with, I disagree. Not many
companies want to install the entire "Core." And by maintaining a
local "Apt" repository, there is little need to either.
> Convenience for those of us (like me) that use a more extensive
> package set should not be compromised.
And it will not since "Core" itself will _not_ be touched.
I too like to install the _full_ Fedora "Core" on my personal
workstations and servers at home.
But for a corporation which maintains its own configuration management,
this is not good IMHO.
That's why I suggested making this subset separate. I called it
Fedora "Quark." It is the "common denominator" that all other,
customized systems can be built from using other "Core" packages,
while offering a basic GUI (which the 90MB "minimal" install
does not).
One thing I'm still not sure I understand: Are you advocating a separate
CD image, or an additional, separate, package set in comps that you can
choose to install, in which case you happen to only need CD 1?
Thanks, Willem Riede.