On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:28 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:30, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:02:34PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to
> > > have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed
> > > out of the box:
> > [...]
> > > Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because
> > > clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to
ship
> > > them.
> >
> > Package set isn't the only distinguishing thing, though. We also have
> > install defaults (xfs vs ext4, for example) and presets for enabled
> > services.
> >
>
> I am not saying that package set is the only distinguishing thing. A
> net install would still chose those defaults.
> All I am trying to find out is if we have a minimal set of services we
> plan to support from the installation or not. If we don't need a
> minimal set of user stories, then we can go with a netinstall which
> has those choices.
We definitely have a minimal set of services. Server WG agreed long
ago that Cockpit, NetworkManager, PackageKit and storaged are minimal
viable functionality. I still think there's value in having a DVD ISO,
if only for the simplicity of trying it out without the added hassles
of network connectivity. (And consider those cases where the hardware
could potentially not have the right network driver available at
install-time).
I've submitted
https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/492
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/376
To make these changes.