[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Making Fedora Core CD #1 Standalone -- Now you're seeing it my way!
- From: Chris Chabot <chabotc 4-ice com>
- To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Making Fedora Core CD #1 Standalone -- Now you're seeing it my way!
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:12:29 +0200
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
[ lots of snippage]Oh no i wasn't agreeing or disagreeing.. I was just brainstorming and
discussing the ideas in a general fashion and trying to give it some
shape (for my own mind to)
I think that was what I was saying.
But maybe I wasn't saying it as clearly?
My apologies ;-).
Eventually I'd like to see the "Quark" weed out a lot of stupid,Actually by splitting up the packages between CD1 = basic working
server/workstation, and the rest on cd's 2..4, you've already filtered
out most of those dependencies.
unnecesary dependencies in "Core." But that's a future ideal.
Secondly, i've tried this 'filter out silly dependencies' quite a few
times my self.. It always ended up biting me in the behind though.
(tried it on rh es, rh9 for some time actually). Often taking out the
dependency will cause bugs to re-appear that were fixed by those
dependencies, or it will break external 3rd party (or legacy) rpm's.
It's easier to pick the low hanging fruit and just put all the 'silly
deps' on the other cd's
I'd go the other way. No apps. Why? Because in short order, it willAh finaly something we disagree on :-) Small is suprisingly easy to
accomplish.. However to make this install usefull to to the average
user, thats something different i.m.o.
bloat to more than 1 CD. The idea here is to make it as small as
possible. Even if its only 300MB or smaller.
We might not share the same vision here.. I envision a 1 CD instalation
that allows ppl to get up and running, and do all the basic server
and/or workstation stuff that you would expect.. So basic IM, browsing,
office document editing, graphic packages, full gnome/nautilus with
basic utilities.. etc. Not the expanded list that makes it 4 cd's, but
enough to have the same experiance as you would have using Windows 9x /
XP.. even just a little more. For a lot of people this 1 CD instalation
should already be enough to start 'using linux'. If after that they want
to install another desktop envirioment, databases, etc.. then they will
need the extra cd's or download things from internet repositories.
Thus my 'quark' (to use your definition) vision is different from
yours.. While i like the concept of "just basics please", i can see this
confusing people why they have to download the 4 cd's anyway (thus not
solving that problem). While for advanced users this pure-basics 1 cd
usefull, i think it misses the point for the "average user"
I gues a terminology i'd use to describe my 1st cd vision is 'assumed
functionality'. An Average User(Tm) is the non-vocal majority who doesnt
care to much about licencing politics, desktop wars or package
inclusions.. All he wants is to download a CD, pop it in, reboot, and
have a brand-sparkling-new linux system up and running within half and
hour; Where he can do his buisness (mail, browse, open office documents,
view his pictures, chat with friends, edit text files and play some
media). If, after that experiance settles in, he wants video
conferencing, databases or any of that 'extra' stuff,
system-config-packages should point him the way to how to get that and
ask for the instalation cd's or download it.. For ppl like that 'yum' is
already quite a far fetched and scary concept
I gues the question i'm asking that appart from "having to be carefull
not to bloat out of the 1 cd confinements for a basic install", what
advantages would this "only very basics please" approach have over a
"functional but kept to one cd" basic install concept?
Last argument i have on this is wasting CD space.. if CD1 only has 200Mb
of stuff on it, there's a big risk this will add another cd to the
instalation, and thus be more expensive to publish/burn, make for more
cd swapping, and make ppl scream bloat even more then they do now..
BTW, does that list include Kerberos? I probably need to find out byOh no it didnt, add another 1 Mb to the number then (very minimal
impact).. ps rpm-analyzer requires some hacking to get it running..
Using my tool works nicely to (ofcource i would think so), and shows
very nicely what extra packages are pulled in to satisfy dependencies..
great for if your doing a measuring game
I see little reason to include development. They can be fetched via Apt/Yam.Self building and able-to-compile systems are very open-source and *nix
like though.. yum/apt is great, but really relying on them to much is
not a good thing either.. Using yum to install mysql .. sure... Using
yum to make assumed basics functionality .. goes to far for me.
For those that can't, Quark is not for them. They should install the full
"Core" instead (possibly from 3rd party DVD with Extras added).
Reality is that a lot of users, experianced or not, like compiling
things from source, or are being told to do so in emails, faq's and
todo's.. It's also one of those 'mystical' new linux user experiance
when they see they can.
Not to mention using yum to forfill building dependencies is a nightmare
for anyone who's not a heavely experianced redhat user.. What -devel
package gives me /usr/include/obscure/file.h or /usr/lib/weird/name.so ?
Yum doesnt process build requirements.. So you'd have to teach them
about --whatprovides and --redhat-provides type command lines or teach
them what packages provide what libs.. Neither of those options is very
attractive if you ask me.
The only reason i see to not include devel packages in an instalation is
for either a secure server (if you can't compile your prefered root kit,
90% of your h4x0rs are already stomped) or for corperate desktop style
Actually in an enterprise environment i'd use the anaconda-ks.cfg
kickstart file, adjust that to my needs as i see fit and make a new
install CD from it (the hard way), or just network instalation using a
bootdisk or preferably thru PXE (the easy way) and install it that way.
In an enterprise environment, I'd rather have a "base" install like
Quark on a CD, and then run a script that does an "apt-get" of
everything else needed. But that's just me.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]