Re: Making Fedora Core CD #1 Standalone -- Now you're seeing it my way!

[Chris Chabot <chabotc 4-ice com>]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> [ lots of snippage]
>
> I think that was what I was saying.
> But maybe I wasn't saying it as clearly?
> My apologies ;-).
>  
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)


> Eventually I'd like to see the "Quark" weed out a lot of stupid,
> unnecesary dependencies in "Core."  But that's a future ideal.
>  
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.

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 will
> bloat to more than 1 CD.  The idea here is to make it as small as
> possible.  Even if its only 300MB or smaller.
>  
Ah 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.

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 by
> using RPM-Analyzer.
>  
Oh 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.
> 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).
>  
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.

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 
instalations.

> 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.
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.