On 4/19/05, Res <res@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > just look at previous threads about the server install option and > the unnecasary junk it installs as well. Talk talk talk.. everybody loves to talk in the mailinglists. Can you point me to a recent bug report for this testing cycle that makes specific requests to refine the comps definition that describes the server install option? Better yet.. can you give me YOUR ideal comps.xml of what a server install should be? You know.. id absolutely love to spin up some isos locally on my system using someone's alternative comps definition that redefines which packages make up a default server install. I challenge you to provide me with an alternative comps.xml file as a starting point for community testing of alternative server install definition. -jef