Minimal install (was: Re: Smaller /boot?)

[Tom Mitchell]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:30:23PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 15:15 -0700, Tom Mitchell wrote:
> > Perhaps, It would be nice to add 'VERY-tiny' to the list of possible
> > installation sets down under custom.  I suspect that some package
> > decisions make "VERY-tiny" harder to do than talk about.
....
> Now that T3 is out, I'll be making a similar effort for FC3 and I would
> like to submit it to the right person... can someone point me to that
> "right person"? I haven't had much luck figuring that out.

The right person is "Mr. Bugzilla".

There are two obvious goals for small but what ever yours are be
clear.  i.e. why you want packageXY eliminated from minimum.  A clear
goal will also make it possible to communicate why packageXY should be
split to packageX and packageY.

I see choices.

  a) Classic unix, shell, awk, sed, cc, ....
     (no gfx, no X).

  b) Firewall box, absolutely nothing extra. Should a bad boy hack in the
     list of tools and libraries would be minimal.

I suspect that there are others

  c) Underpowered hardware and tiny disk.

  d) The set of stuff common in a, b, c (foundation).
     enough to bootstrap live to any of the above (rpm).

Me I would pick one 'obvious' extra in the current minimum
and bugzilla it.  The follow the process...



-- 
	T o m  M i t c h e l l 
	May your cup runneth over with goodness and mercy
	and may your buffers never overflow.