On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 06:21 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:47 +0300, Aioanei Rares wrote: > > > > > Gah, ignore me. I meant to install i386 earlier but wound up > > installing > > an x86_64 image which accounts for the difference. And the > > docs agree > > fully with my subsequent experience :) > > > > Either way, I think you're right...the req's are kinda high... > > Well, yes. I will do an i386 install later and compare. I don't really > blame the *x86_64* figures for being so high, largely because any system > featuring an x86_64 probably never had less than 256MB RAM and 512MB > really isn't all that much to be expecting these days. It'd just be > nicer if we could install in a virtual machine with less allocated. I had a feature request open to have the x86_64 installer actually be a .i386 python/yum/anaconda (anaconda does not currently need more than 4GB of virtual space :). Which would make the installer size requirements for x86_64 be the same: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437914 Feel free to pile on the love to clumens :). -- James Antill <james.antill@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
