On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 10:48 -0400, James Antill wrote: > 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 :). I hate to say it, but that makes a lot of sense. A disturbing amount of sense - glad it was already on the radar :) Jon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
