On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 09:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > >>There's also the question of if we're server focused or desktop focused. > >>Right now it's some strange combination of both. But for a one-cd > >>install we're going to have to make a choice between the two. > >> > >> > > > >Good question. > > > >--g > > > > > Desktop just makes better sense for a single CD target IMO. Server users > generally are more advanced and would want to install more packages > while a significant portion of desktop users might be willing to settle > for the default desktop Lapps in a single CD. IMO, distinguishing between desktop and server installs and basing decisions on "whether to include a package or not onto this CD" on this, doesn't make much sense due to the "rolling nature" of _both_ FC and FE. I'd prefer if a "1CD-Fedora" was to contain only those packages a user needs to be able to bring up his system to the point, where he can configure it and download additional packages from the net. I.e. I'd prefer a 1CD-Fedora not to be much more than an extended "installer/bootstrap CD". "Office", etc. then would not be much more than "predefined sets of packages, a user would chose to install. Be it from CD, the net or whatever media. > There is still a question > of providing specific targets such as GNOME, KDE and XFCE among others. Given what I wrote above, if one of these is part of "packages required to bootstrap", so be it on the 1CD, if not, so be it not ... > This can be resolved by building one and enable the community to build > the rest. I feel you seem to be mixing up "1CD-distro" with "FC vs. FE" and "RH-maintained vs. community-maintained", here. In my understanding there actually is no real connection between these topics at all. Ralf
