to take a view in the possible future: What would be really perfect would be a Livecd-Creation software where you could drag elements from one side (available software-groups) to the other.
So you might have icons for GNOME, Openoffice.org, KDE,... on the left and can drop it to the right. Then you can save this as a possible Live-CD. Dependencies should then be resolved. Libe in burning applications it should be displayed how much place is taken.
If you double-click on something like GNOME you could see the applications and/or libraries inside. Then one could deselect some applications that are part of GNOME by dragging them from right to left.
And, yes this could also be combined with a burning application.
ciao, Thilo
PS: just to share the idea...
One of the biggest problems I have had on my current project is finding an appropriate starting point. I looked at a lot of the LiveCD implementations and the majority are aimed at the complete functionality end of the spectrum. What I was after was the exact opposite, absolute minimal functionality.
At present, the minimal install of FC4 still installs way too many things for what I wanted. There are dependencies on packages that I'll never need or use and it is proving difficult to cut it back.
It would be great if the build environment and the result could be totally independent. i.e. actually start with a clean slate (empty CD :-) and add only those things one really wants. All the supporting stuff used to manage the installation and the whole process e.g. python and lots of others should only need to be present in the build environment not the resulting CD.
I am looking at CDs for Kiosk-like solutions. It would be great to simply drag across the kernel, networking and a browser, satisfy the dependencies on that lot and leave the rest.
At this time, I have used an FC4 minimal install and the ADIOS/YETAA-ATK and then tried to remove everything that I don't want. A tedious process.
Am Mittwoch, den 17.08.2005, 10:47 +1200 schrieb Glen Eustace:
It would be great if the build environment and the result could be totally independent. i.e. actually start with a clean slate (empty CD :-) and add only those things one really wants. All the supporting stuff used to manage the installation and the whole process e.g. python and lots of others should only need to be present in the build environment not the resulting CD.
I am looking at CDs for Kiosk-like solutions. It would be great to simply drag across the kernel, networking and a browser, satisfy the dependencies on that lot and leave the rest.
Have you heard about the "freedom toaster"? It was introduced in the Go-Open series in Australia (an open source series sponsored by Mark Shuttleworth:
http://www.go-opensource.org/go_open/episode_3/what_is_hot/ (you can also episode 3 on this website)
They produced something that is hardware and software and enables users to just burn a distro like Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. It's not quite what you want, but it is also Kiosk style. The combination with hardware is cool. A small linux inside and then maybe they have some number keys and a key for submit and cancel.
Maybe the better process would be if Fedora itself is built with a modular system that we also can use for creating a live CD. So Fedora could be a very flexible distro 'by default'. This software then should be distributed with Fedora so it gets more testing.
Does anybody know how Fedoras official CDs are produced right now? What are they using as helper tools?
Thilo
Glen Eustace wrote:
At present, the minimal install of FC4 still installs way too many things for what I wanted. There are dependencies on packages that I'll never need or use and it is proving difficult to cut it back.
Not related to the Live CD but would you mind filing bugs against the appropriate packages. Additional functionality can be split up into sub packages. This is being considered for dovecot for example
regards Rahul
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 15:08 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
At present, the minimal install of FC4 still installs way too many things for what I wanted. There are dependencies on packages that I'll never need or use and it is proving difficult to cut it back.
Not related to the Live CD but would you mind filing bugs against the appropriate packages. Additional functionality can be split up into sub packages. This is being considered for dovecot for example
It would seem that many packagers are assuming that their package will be installed on a full distribution, these dependencies seem to cause unnecessary bloat. Rather than trying to make packages as independent as possible, I am seeing a steadily growing proliferation of the spiders web.
I can't give you a specific, but the sort of thing I am getting at is the use of perl and python scripts that are only used during the configuration of a package. In normal use the package doesn't need perl or python but if you want to install the package, you wind up having to include these packages as well (and they aren't small). While it may not be the case everytime, a bash script may have done the job quite nicely.
It seems that as time has gone by, we are seeing more rather than less dependence with packages. I remember being able to do a minimal install of some of the earlier RH releases and they wer something like 126Mb compared with a minimal of FC4 which is more than 500Mb !! The base packages themselves haven't grown that much, but the dependencies sure have.
Glen.
Hi
I can't give you a specific, but the sort of thing I am getting at is the use of perl and python scripts that are only used during the configuration of a package.
If we have to improve the dependencies issues you are talking, please find specific instances and report them in bugzilla.
regards Rahul
Glen, I suppose you're talking about instances in which a lazy programmer uses perl for a one-line function that could just as easily be solved by bash and sed. Right?
But how often does this happen besides for perl or python, since both are pretty central? Are you talking about module bloat?
If you have specific examples, that'd help a lot.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
I can't give you a specific, but the sort of thing I am getting at is the use of perl and python scripts that are only used during the configuration of a package.
If we have to improve the dependencies issues you are talking, please find specific instances and report them in bugzilla.
regards Rahul
-- Fedora-livecd-list mailing list Fedora-livecd-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 17:18, Glen Eustace wrote:
It seems that as time has gone by, we are seeing more rather than less dependence with packages.
I think we are doing a better job of finding the dependencies. Many were always there undocumented and your scripts would blow up because something expected wasn't installed.
-Steve
livecd@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Glen Eustace -
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Rahul Sundaram -
Steve Grubb -
Thilo Pfennig