John Hinton wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> I don't know, I must be choosing something that's throwing the extra
> garbage in. And I know, I could write my own KS, but gee, I don't do it
> often enough for that and some machines vary, for instance some are
> nameservers some are not. A person can spend a lot of time in dependancy
> hell trying to get a clean install. If one does select minimal, are you
> presented with the custom option during install? Or is minimal only
> available at the bottom of the customization screen? Seems like figuring
> out what's missing might not be worth the effort to trim the fat? And
> maybe I'm crazy, but it seems that installing packages like bind during
> the intial install, configures itself more completely off the start
> versus installing the package later?
>
> A great point was made..... Custom should be Custom and should allow
> minimal within that scope. Custom doesn't even seem to have nearly the
> full package list shown, although yes, it can be argued that some
> packages simply must be installed and therefore don't need to be shown.
> Then again, maybe one of my 'other' selections is throwing X into the game?
>
> When CentOS finalizes their 'Server CD', perhaps a copy should be sent
> to RedHat!! LOL!
>
> Again, I know this is not a 'CentOS' issue. And crap... here I go
> rambling again! Sorry.
Just to throw in my $0.02: we do minimal installs with all our RHEL and
CentOS boxes (both 3 and 4) and it really is minimal - no X, no GUI, no
KDE/GNOME or Window Managers. If you're building a server then you know
what should be on it so you can just do things like 'yum install httpd
php mysql' or whatever to get yourself going. Its a very clean way of
doing things.
--
Tim Edwards
