> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:55:30PM -0400, John.Florian@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > So maybe I should say that I think Fedora has always had it just about
> > right, IMHO. A very small, but functional system ready to grow and can do
> > so with its own tools.
>
> Yeah, but there's _so much_ room to quibble over what "functional" means
> there. For cloud JEOS images, I think we need less than that (because
> extremely ridiculously minimal is what people are asking for).
Agreed. I think this also goes back to one of the requests here asking for a definition of what "minimal" means. It also clearly shows the need for other "minimal-like" installs.
> > Makes sense, but can someone please tell me what "comps" stands for? I
> > mostly know what they're used for, but have never guessed the acronym. My
> > best guess just came to me after years of pondering: compilations? Anyway,
> > I feel rather stupid asking this Q, but hey "there's no stupid Qs, right?"
> > ;-)
>
> Once upon a time, the installer presented you with a dialog with the title
> "Components to install". (I believe this even *predates anaconda*.)
>
> This is the list of those components. The "comps file".
Oh yes, of course! I remember the days ... having started with RHL 4.0. Some acronyms are just more obvious than others and comps.* is just about as cryptic as trans.* (arbitrary, fictional example) so thank you for clearing that up.
--
John Florian
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
