On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 18:09 Asia/Jerusalem, Bill Rugolsky Jr.
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:38:09AM -0400, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> File it as a bug! Or maybe you want to step up and be part of a
> worthwhile discussion as to re-working of the existing minimal install
> option. Since it seems its really a more a matter of how the packages
> are grouped and which groups a minimal install actually installs..its
> more a policy issue than an expert coding issue. This seems like
> something we can have a nice lovely little community discussion
> about...instead of just poking repeatedly at the anaconda maintainer
> to
> remove this one package here...or this one other package..or maybe add
> this one package to minimal. And its certainly a better idea to fix
> the
> current minimal install offering than adding another minimal minimal
> layer beyond the "broken" minimal.
>
>
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-beta-list/2003-July/msg00569.html
This discussion always tends to conflate different notions of
"minimal".
The question is "minimal" w.r.t what criterion? Is it the bare list
of packages necessary to get to a login prompt on a standalone machine?
Is it a networked host? Is documentation included? Manpages?
Info files? /usr/share/doc?
I'd like to see a "bootstrap configuration" that installs enough that
I can install more using up2date or yum. That generally means "basic
networking (and firewalling)" + any specifics needed to get my host
connected to my network or ISP (i.e., ppp, dhcp, etc.).
A bootstrap configuration would be nice, but I dont think it would be
for anaconda proper. Maybe there needs to be something like "linux
bootstrap". We need to work or this further.
--Jack