On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We could phrase it a little bit more similarly to the existing default > install criterion: > > "The installer must be able to complete package installation with the > default package set for each supported installation method" > > Perhaps: > > "The installer must be able to complete package installation with a > minimal usable set of packages" Not to be pedantic, but what's the difference in these two? Are we actually suggesting that the default package set is *not* useful? :). I get what Petr is going for, but either of these wordings don't get it across to me. What I consider a "minimal usable set of packages" and what you do may be two entirely different things. What I would rather do is specify the minimal amount of function that the system must be able to perform, and to me, that reads something like: "The installer must be able to install the minimum amount of packages required to obtain network connectivity via any supported means and install additional packages as the user sees fit" Yes, I realize that this criterion, when applied, means that we can't install things like vim or openssh during such an installation, and that's fine with me. Remote access is not a requirement, nor is the ability to edit files (but if we want to add them, that's fine - we just need to explicitly define what tasks are able to be performed or not performed) -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
