On 2004.05.30 20:48, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Willem Riede wrote: > > Why? I've read the barrage of mails this triggered, and I see > > absolutely no benefit. I can understand the desire to have a more > > minimal "minimal" install package set, and the packages that would be > > in that set will probably all sit on the first CD. But that doesn't > > translate into the need to limit the size of the distribution. > > For companies who need a "base" to start with, I disagree. Not many > companies want to install the entire "Core." And by maintaining a > local "Apt" repository, there is little need to either. > > > Convenience for those of us (like me) that use a more extensive > > package set should not be compromised. > > And it will not since "Core" itself will _not_ be touched. > I too like to install the _full_ Fedora "Core" on my personal > workstations and servers at home. > > But for a corporation which maintains its own configuration management, > this is not good IMHO. > > That's why I suggested making this subset separate. I called it > Fedora "Quark." It is the "common denominator" that all other, > customized systems can be built from using other "Core" packages, > while offering a basic GUI (which the 90MB "minimal" install > does not). One thing I'm still not sure I understand: Are you advocating a separate CD image, or an additional, separate, package set in comps that you can choose to install, in which case you happen to only need CD 1? Thanks, Willem Riede.
