On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 23:04]: > > 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. > > Maybe you have missed earlier discussions where three example usecases > were presented for discussion:
No, I did not miss that discussion but I can't see why all these use cases have to be unified into a single use case that just does not exist in reality. > 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD > 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest > 3. running a chroot environment > > The intersection of packages for these usecases is what we're looking for. Why does one have to define this intersection explicitly? On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:59:23AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 23:19]: > > This is the thinko! Why should one have to select a "base package set" and > > "minimal networking" if he just wants "minimal networking" (whatever that > > would be)? > > There is no need to select both. "minimal networking" would install "base > package set" > through dependencies. > It just that "minimal networking" is option (can be deselected) but > "base package set" is not. So why do we need "base package set" at all? > To me the question is, which packages (resp. patterns) should be enforced > (required) > by an openSUSE system and which are optional. That actually depends on your use case. I mean for example on installation YaST has to enforce installation of a kernel (among other things), thus a kernel must be part of a package set defining a minimal set YaST must enforce on installation. But why is it important for you to know whether a kernel is needed in _all_ possible use cases. I mean when you implement the pattern for YaST installation you should try to solve _this_ question and not all other similar problems of the world at the same time. > If one still wants to de-install one of these packages, the resulting system > isn't considered openSUSE any more. Why do you need a set of packages to name "openSUSE"? If a set of packages fulfilles the specific needs of a use case then the set is fine, if it does not, it is broken for that use case. So what to you need this common intersection? I mean if you feel the need to answer the pure philosophical question on how this abstract construction has to look like according to your opinion then head on. I just say that you waste your time, will never come to a serious conclusion, and kill every serious discussion on related threads trying to find a pattern for a serious use case. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgpmoEqCl6Xyb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
