As much as I like Debian/Ubuntu I'd second Arch as well. It provides all the tools required for compilation as a base, it would take a few minutes to create some sort of suckless-tools dummy package, has a simple and fairly vanilla configuration base and it has every application you've listed to be installed by default in its repositories. The only thing I see taking a while is a new livecd/install cd, but it couldn't be any harder than creating a new Ubuntu one.
On 3/14/07, Stalwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Slackware (and its forks), Crux (and its forks including ArchLinux) and source-based distros (gentoo, smgl) rule because they're simple (well, except gentoo). Debian is too automated and has (imho) too much strange scripts. ArchLinux minimal install is ~100Mb, but full dwm-environment can be <250Mb. Same with slack On 3/14/07, Michael Muster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I, don't see a reason why it is necessary to start a new distribution. > If you install a minimal debian by selecting nothing when tasksel > asks, you get a minimal system where everyone can install what he/she > wants. > For an minimal dwm-system an > aptitude install x-window-system-core and a few > x-libs to compile dwm should work. > Perhaps add build-essential, xterm, and an editor and the system is > ready for use. > > > > > > > > > > -- > >
-- Callan Barrett
