<tt><font size=2>> From: Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org></font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:55:30PM -0400, John.Florian@dart.biz
wrote:<br>
> > So maybe I should say that I think Fedora has always had it just
about <br>
> > right, IMHO. A very small, but functional system ready
to grow and can do <br>
> > so with its own tools.<br>
> <br>
> Yeah, but there's _so much_ room to quibble over what "functional"
means<br>
> there. For cloud JEOS images, I think we need less than that (because<br>
> extremely ridiculously minimal is what people are asking for).</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>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.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
> > Makes sense, but can someone please tell me what "comps"
stands for? I <br>
> > mostly know what they're used for, but have never guessed the
acronym. My <br>
> > best guess just came to me after years of pondering: compilations?
Anyway, <br>
> > I feel rather stupid asking this Q, but hey "there's no
stupid Qs, right?" <br>
> > ;-)<br>
> <br>
> Once upon a time, the installer presented you with a dialog with the
title<br>
> "Components to install". (I believe this even *predates
anaconda*.)<br>
> <br>
> This is the list of those components. The "comps file".</font></tt>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
--<br>
John Florian</font>
<br>
<br>