Why are there only i686 and i586 Version of glibc and kernel?-- not "lite" (386/486 @ 400MHz+, 256MB RAM)

[Crutcher Dunnavant]

I think that perhaps, "Core" and "Extras" is insufficiently fine
grained. There is value in a truly small distro, one small enough
that, while it contains everything needed to run itself, it does not
contain the tools needed to build itself. Think PVRs, Routers,
MyRoboticDog, etc.

Since these packages are to be built in a common space, it's really
just an issue of which repository the RPMS get dropped into after they
are built. I'd rather see something like, in staggered order of
dependancy:

Core - (no, really, CORE. No X, no gcc, just the hard base.)
Desktop
Development
Multimedia
Extras

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:23:48 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
<strange at nsk.no-ip.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:06:15PM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:39:50 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha
> > <strange at nsk.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > Sure. A compiler is definitive a developer niche. Why do FC ship one?
> > Sigh..... i think the better question is why would FC continue to ship
> > one after Extras openings up officially. Remember any discussion about
> > 'dropping' crap out of Core happens in the context of having an
> > official Extras in place to catch those packages.
> > So what makes the most sense to ask is...in the future...why would FC
> > ship a compiler. And I would say to that question...becuase there is
> > inherent value to open source CORE in providing the build tools which
> > the srpms that make up the CORE packages.
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I find Tcl of inherent value to CORE as well.
> Because of all the available packages, and because I feel more need to
> support the installation of such packages than installation of packages in
> source form (for less expert users).
> 
> > > I don't see as support for a common used scripting language should be
> > > delegated to a 3rd party (as it is now).
> >
> > Becuase IF in the future the scripting language isnt being used by
> > packages in core.....then the scripting language shouldn't be part of
> > Core either. There is no reason keep a scripting language in Core, if
> > ALL the imnumerable projects that need it are sitting OUTSIDE of Core.
> > If we tried very very hard...we could probable have Core be 3 cd
> > images of nothing but libraries and script interpreters with no
> > general purpose applications at all....thats not general purpose...no
> > way...no how.  Keeping a scripting language IN core when no packages
> > IN core are using it...isn't necessarily a good thing.  People need to
> > stop thinking that Core is going to provide everything for everybody.
> > Core can not hold the dependancies for all possible application level
> > projects in existence. Moving forward Extras is going to become very
> > important for any usage outside the very narrow and specific usage
> > situations that Core alone will be aimed at.
> 
> But Tcl isn't an extra package that ones install, it's core for several
> extra packages.
> 
> But if FC size has to be reduced, some applications *are* going to have to
> move out to Extras. And if people find Tcl the current least important,
> then it shall be moved.
> 
> I find it more important than other packages in Core, but then, I'm not
> representative of all users.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Luciano Rocha
> 
> --
> Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
> 
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
> 


-- 
Crutcher