Re: Minimal systems

[Jeremy Katz <katzj redhat com>]

On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 17:11 -0600, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 07:34 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
> >> The absolute minimum maintainable set should be "minimum."
> >>
> >> It needs a text editor, and the one history tells us should be there is 
> >> vi (not that johnny-come-lately nano that some install).
> >>
> >> I don't care whether the practical minimum is "base" or "core," and I 
> >> think I'm not alone in being unable to see the difference between the terms.
> > 
> > The problem is that the word "minimum" is so heavily loaded (and
> > differently loaded) that if you use it, you make no one happy.  So, you
> > pick different terms so that people can have the "minimum" they are
> > looking for
> 
> I was both joking, and making your point about this, regarding ed vs vi.
> 
> But a real question is this-  Can the parsing of the package list be 
> improved so that the original intuitive attempt at the beginning of this 
> thread-
> 
> %packages
>    @base
>    -selinux-policy
>    -selinux-policy-targeted
>    -selinux-policy-mls
>    %end
> 
> would actually work?

It should be working -- I haven't tried it in anaconda in a while, but
it definitely was working in livecd-creator when I was poking at the
smallest installs back before the holiday.  I'll try to fire up an
install later in the weekend and try.  But right now, it's 8 pm on
Friday night and so I am going to enjoy the evening :-)

Jeremy