On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:40:55AM +0100, Tomas Forsman wrote: > Will FL3 have same kind of setup of groups that we have today? Or will it > have a better structure? > I hope that we are aiming for being able to customize our FL3 as we want. > Without getting too much of unwanted packages.
We do want to start over on groups for FL3. The structure we have now is half inherited from rPath Linux. I think that migrations from FL2 to FL3 will involve more than just changing a label and version in a system model. We should preserve the groups that make sense for us, but remove groups that are just a legacy of the old rPath Linux base, and add groups that make sense. We definitely want core groups that support installation of a server without pulling in bits of X. Something minimal. Originally, that was a purpose served by rPath Linux, and Foresight was the graphical layer on top of rPath Linux. With rPath Linux out of the picture, Foresight takes on that purpose too. On the infrastructure machines, most of my system models start with: install group-core group-base Those have, in my opinion, grown a few too many dependencies for historical reasons. I'd love to have the ability to build truly minimal software appliance groups. Right now, building a software appliance on top of foresight uses roughly twice as much disk space as it used on rPath Linux. That would also benefit the lightweight desktop environments, not having baked into the groups assumptions of a richer GNOME desktop environment. (Like, for example, the hack we currently have for the GNOME keyring.) António, have you put thought yet into which groups that we currently have are really vestigial and should not be preserved in FL3? _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
