On 03/08/2016 09:17 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Máirín Duffy
>> I also don't like the user experience confusion that this would generate:
>> this is branded media and being able to install something that isn't
>> actually Fedora Server from this media leads to brand dilution. If we
>> could find a way to make it more clear that this installing Minimal
>> doesn't result in a Fedora Server Edition install, I could be swayed on
>> this point.
> I agree that this is a concern - suggestion for the naming scheme if we
> include both (which Stephen and I talked through today, he came up with the
> final naming scheme I that I think would work well):
> - Fedora Server Edition - Fedora Custom Operating System
> Since minimal really is for folks building a custom OS right... makes more
> sense, and the names become use-case focused here instead of the ambiguous
> term "minimal" for which there are maybe 5 different ideas of what that
> means... make sense?
Or - Fedora Server Edition - Custom Operating System
Is the custom OS really even Fedora? It's Fedora packages, but not a Fedora
product. So it could go either way depending on the emphasis. Also "custom"
Yes, a custom OS built from Fedora packages is Fedora (and is allowed to use the
various Fedora marks). That's been well-established over the years. It's not a
top-tier Fedora deliverable, but it's still Fedora. (If it's built from Fedora +
non-Fedora packages, it's allowed to use the secondary Fedora Remix marks)
doesn't exactly convey the bare bones result, but perhaps
that's not a
meaningful concern for the target audience for this option.
Well, to me that means it's describing the reality better: what we've called
"Minimal" in the past has never been what a lay-person would call
It's really been "a small set of stuff that a random set of contributors have
decided belongs in every install of Fedora". This actually sounds to me like the
sort of thing that should actually be curated by the Base WG in the terms of
As Máirín pointed out, the people who use Minimal (excluding the OpenQA case)
are really doing so for the purpose of constructing a custom version of Fedora
specific to their needs. I think it does them a disservice to pretend this is
"Minimal" and is much clearer to describe it as what it is: the foundational
building block for creating those custom versions. The bonus here is that by
defining this as its purpose, we can then have someone like the Base WG work on
actually updating the contents to match that use-case.
Today, the minimal environment is defined as the @core comps group, plus the
option for the @standard and @guest-agents groups. The @core group contains a
some stuff that is really stretching the definition of "minimal". Does a truly
minimal environment need openssh-server, firewalld and NetworkManager, for
example? Why doesn't it include a shell? (bash is pulled in by dependencies, but
it should probably be explicit.) I'll stop here, but I think my point is made.
I strongly suspect that the contents of this @core group should be replaced by
(or be the basis of the implementation for) the "Core Module" discussed at the