Dave Miner wrote: > Ethan Quach wrote: >> >> >> Jens Deppe wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Should I expect that a manifest without any packages defined, when >>> used in an install, would result in the base set of packages being >>> installed (SUNWcsd, SUNWcs, slime_install and entire)? >> >> No, that list isn't baked in anywhere, so the manifest needs it there >> for now. I believe there's an RFE for something similar to what >> you're asking about, however we really need to define what >> constitutes a "base set" of packages for installation; and perhaps >> different sets for different types of installations - applicance, >> minimal install, etc.. >> > > I'm doubtful that installing some hard-coded package list when none is > provided is at all a good idea in terms of evolving the technology, or > in using it with multiple different distributions. Defining standard > package set names is useful, and providing examples of using them as > well, but I would prefer to regard a manifest which didn't specify any > packages as incorrect.
I agree with you here. -ethan
