On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]: > > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots > > which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are > > smaller than any package on the distro ;) For building packages you > > don't need network, but some other tools such as make and a compiler. > > Exactly. > But even for these environments, you probably need a minimal set > of packages like glibc, bash, etc. The question is, shouldn't this > minimal set be the 'very minimal base' (:-)) pattern ?
This is exactly the reason why you will never reach consensus about _the_ "minimal package set" in my opinion. Actually the _real_ "minimal package set" is having no package at all because having no package at all resolves all dependencies of the packages and there is no package left someone might claim to be unneeded. And this is the _only_ real "minimal package set" that is minimal from a mathematical point of view. So what people actually mean when they say "minimal package set" is actually either a "what-_I_-want-at-least-on-my-system package set" or a "what-is-needed-for-a-specific-job pattern set". In the first case you will never reach consesus by obvious reasons. In the second case you don't need _the_ "minimal package set" but you need _a_ "minimal package set" for a specific job. So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss about a minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a new system or a pattern that should be installed for doing this or that but not mix up everything and call this undefined thing "minimal pattern set". Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgps9qYgZh7SG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
