[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PROPOSAL: Core redefinition

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 25 July 2004 11:32, Jos Vos wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:08:17AM +0100, Andy Green wrote:
> > Redefine "Core" to mean a true minimal install.  I have a remote
> > dedicated server that is running Fedora (fantasically) for example, that
> > scenario is a great candidate for being "Core".  No Xorg, try to shrivel
> > package interdependencies to a much better minimum set.
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > All the extra packages are installed by yum or equivalent once Core is
> > installed and running, as a normal action.  Packages installed should be
> > the latest available from repos available, not the ones on install media,
> > just like a real user using yum update.  
> What about automatic installation (kickstart),

Don't know it well enough to say...  

> > Nothing to stop Anaconda
> > allowing package selection at the start of the install and automating the
> > install action on the first reboot.

...the above sounds like it should be able to map on to whatever is needed 

> what about install media
> (network access should *not* be a prerequisite), what about the number

I did not say network access should be a prerequisite.  Whatever Yum or 
equivalent can handle as a tranport will be fine, including mounted CDs.  But 
unlike at the moment, the install action COULD use updated packages initially 
if network access was configured.

> of CD's we need when we split up the non-core stuff in all kinds of
> additional sets, what about...

No problem.  By giving the moniker "core" its real meaning, it would only give 
extra opportunities for modular packaging, not make new difficulties.  You 
have this couple of hundred megs or whatever of really core stuff and then 
just working sets of RPMs.  At the moment with the "bogo-Core" situation I 
have to pull down the Gnome DE for example when I pull the distro, if I want 
it or not.  By exploiting yum folks can pull down the real core ISO, and then 
go off in whatever direction they like mixing and matching package sets from 

> Not meant to be specifically a response to this posting, but I think
> shrinking the core distribution is a very bad thing.  It should be a
> *complete* distribution, otherwise it just is not a distribution.

I understand your point.  But if the plan is to create this Core / Extras 
discontiguity anyway, and now RH seriously considers to move KDE into the 
ghetto, then this is "shrinking the core distribution".

> If people nearly always need more than the core, why would we want to
> leave it out for that few percents that only want a firewall?  Anaconda
> still has the minimal install option.  A tool for creating a small
> package subset for a specific purpose, honouring all dependencies,
> would be a handy thing, for people that want their own small subset.

The minimum install in Anaconda is bloated, it's not Anaconda's fault but the 
dependencies listed in the RPMs.  I know this because I did some work to 
install by hand a minimum install based on FC1.  A really lean really core 
install, looked after as part of Fedora by RH, would be really valuable.  Yes 
it can be a firewall but it can be a stable basis for other kinds of 
purpose-built distros too.

Basically, my suggestion is that "core" should be the minimum userspace stuff 
around the kernel that is needed in almost all scenarios.  Everything else is 
in Extras, or you can make another repo layer Fedora GDesktop which is 

It occurs to me this might not map on to the RH grand plan of FC -> RHEL, in 
which case I gracefully concede nothing is going to happen with it.

- -Andy

- -- 
Note: all HTML Email to me is rejected at the mailserver
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]