On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 14:50 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 13:48 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > I'm still a bit baffled that a 3.5 MB increase on a 700MB live image > > is considered a complete showstopper. That's one git package, for example; > > I would hope that creative dependency trimming can find that space. > > (Or reorganization of boot images, for example.) > > There's a modest amount of low-hanging fruit if people really cared > about image size. For example, here's a way to shrink the > (uncompressed) live filesystem by 30M: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812975#c4 > > I do find the concern for difficult install scenarios to be noble, but I > would tend to class that as a different problem from producing a useful > live image that also happens to be installable. But clearly the > objection here is about "doing more work" more than "changing the image > size". Well, the desktop team has said for a while that the thing they'd really want to add to the desktop image if they had more room is LibreOffice, but that requires substantially more than a few dozen MB. Basically, they consider saving a small amount of room to be more trouble than it's worth in most cases, but saving or creating a large amount of room to be very valuable, as it would allow the re-introduction of an office suite. AIUI, anyway. As it stands, the desktop image is actually usually several MB under 700, but not enough to put LO back in. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
