On 2004.06.06 15:05, Tom Diehl wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote: > > > I think that perhaps, "Core" and "Extras" is insufficiently fine > > grained. There is value in a truly small distro, one small enough > > that, while it contains everything needed to run itself, it does not > > contain the tools needed to build itself. Think PVRs, Routers, > > MyRoboticDog, etc. > > > > Since these packages are to be built in a common space, it's really > > just an issue of which repository the RPMS get dropped into after they > > are built. I'd rather see something like, in staggered order of > > dependancy: > > > > Core - (no, really, CORE. No X, no gcc, just the hard base.) > > Desktop > > Development > > Multimedia > > Extras > > I really like this idea, but wouldn't it be a maintenance nightmare? > > What I am thinking about specifically is how do you handle the stuff that > fits into more than 1 category? Is that automatically part of core? > Do you suggest that anaconda only know how to install core and everything > else is done post install? I am sure there are other cases to be thought > about. Wouldn't all of the categories need to be tested together to ensure > compatibility? This subject comes up again and again but seems to be about > as far as it goes. Then again once the Red Hat/Fedora infrastructure to > allow external contribution's is finally up and running things might > progress. How would that work with respect to upgrades? Haven't we had cases where glibc needed to be upgraded and that change affected virtually all applications? With a monolithic distribution that is pretty painless, compatible versions are available and replace their ancestors. I would hate a slimmed down Core to cause me pain in that respect in the future. Having to worry about such compatability myself would be a step backwards. Oh, and by the way, personally I couldn't care less how big the distribution grows. 10 CDs? No problem. 5 DVDs? Fine too. Regards, Willem Riede.
