This is a reply to: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/8980#issuecomment-3938950365
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 07:22:35 -0800 unman wrote: > No doubt there is a place for mini templates. But the CURRENT minimal > templates give rise to repeated user errors and confusions - the > proposal here would multiply that. Are any of those related to the lack of particular package (which one)? > I completely agree that having two templates would have a similar > effect. That's why I'm opposed to the idea. You said: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/8980#issuecomment-3937767597 > If the aim is to provide an additional mini template for the project, > OK. I've done that myself. But the aim should not be to REPLACE the > current minimal template. which I am reading as "I am OK with additional mini template, just don't replace the current one". Now I understand you are against both but it is still not immediately clear why. > You should read "most vital" within the context of what Debian > considers core. I can't find any definition of Debian "core" package although I searched a lot. What I find is: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s3.7 https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities Here: https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/how-are-minimal-templates-and-dom0-created/22544/18 you explained that minimal templates "bootstrap a basic system, and install packages on it" to "make a usable system, providing (most of) expected programs", by "follow[ing] the culture of the distro, while attempting to make templates cohere". You also said that decisions about all that were made by "the core team - although reasoned arguments for inclusion/changes are welcome." I don't know what expected programs means (by whom?). How does it align with: https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/introduction/faq.html#could-you-please-make-my-preference-the-default Speaking of core/vital, if you look at what I also linked on GitHub: https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/minifying-debian-12-minimal-and-debian-13-minimal/24778/40 that procedure explicitly avoids "required" and "essential" packages. > Of course, you can strip out what you like, but the aim is to provide > templates that provide what Debian considers core/base and are USABLE > by users. I already explained on GitHub that removing the suggested packages does not create dependency issues and pointed out possible solutions to potential usage difficulties. Marek also explained that fdisk might be necessary and a potential future dependency. That leaves for consideration: - fdisk - xterm - probably some minimal text editor Fair enough. But if you insist that it is better to leave all 42 packages (including 3 editors, network tools and what not) even though even Debian wiki suggest they can be removed, please provide objective reasons. > By all means, publish a guide on how to reduce the minimal template, Linked above. > or propose specific packages that should be removed from the minimal > template, but what you are doing here is not that. What do you mean? I have provided a list of packages, the procedure for finding them and the reasons why they can be removed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/20260221192328.28271277%40localhost.
