On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:23:41PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-18-07 15:54]: > [...] > > 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". > > > So, SOMEONE needs to take the lead and SET parameters for *minimal* and > let everybody add to that to achieve what they desire as *minimal*. > > You are correct that a consensus will not be reached. > > 1. Set a minimum minimal
As I already said this is the empty set because for _every_ package you name I can find a use case where this one is not needed. I don't get it why some people insist on having a "generic minimum set" without having a concrete use case. Nobody actually needs this. We have implemented a package management system for a specific project and I can tell you that we never defined such a "generic minimum set" and it still works --- believe it or not. Just consider every request for such a "generic minimum set" as a troll posting because it just leads to hundreds of really stupid discussion mails. > 2. Define several small adds or enhancements for minimal Yes, do _that_ when you have a _concrete_ use case but _not_ when you are bored and just want to write something on the list. This is what Andreas did initially correct in this thread by specifying what he wants to have and many others did wrong in this thread by mixing in various other use cases that came to their mind but were completely unrelated to the initial question. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgpncswxxKIFc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
