On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/10/2008 10:10:17 AM: > >> Ed Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >> > Sorry, but 'sensible security' sounds too much like politico or > salesman >> > speak for "everything works out of the box!" >> >> When the alternative is "wait, you can't talk to the network because >> ISDN/bridge tools/etc. aren't installed", absolutely. >> >> The reason things like that are installed in the default minimal >> install is that there's not a good mechanism to automatically grab >> hardware-specific packages specific to your machine. If something >> like that comes around, that can change. >> >> In the meantime, "%packages --nobase" in kickstart should solve your >> needs - if you're trying to install a large group of servers, you >> absolutely should be using kickstart. > > Okay. So what I'm hearing here is that it is better for the vast majority > to have to use kickstart to remove packages so that the minority can have > something installed by default? Seems a bit backwards to me. Especially > since if you do a base install, and ISDN is not installed, you can pop the > disk back in and install the RPM, or wait... use a kickstart? :) (see, > isn't that an annoying suggestion?) >
When going over past requests on mailling lists.. what the most people wanted was that the installer just installed everything and be done with it. Of course that's its own nightmare, but its what people wanted much more than a minimal install. And then there was the arguments of what was a minimal install. Some people just wanted kernel, init, glibc, and bash and bash might have been too much. Another vocal crowd wanted just enough to get the rest of the install going. Another vocal group thought that a minimal was what RH already had, and then the next vocal crowd said all that was stupid and install everything was the only sane choice. Actually these 'crowds' are usually 5-10 people.. which out of 100k customers is hard to figure out which ones are really important. > I think it isn't to much to ask to have a good Minimal install option back > in the installer. I've already heard and been apart of the argument with > one of the anaconda devs about this. I'll be nice and not target him by > name, because I understand that he has his reasons. One of his standpoints > is that now that the installer uses YUM and dynamic dependancy checking it > is difficult to do Minimal/Full installs. He questions how you can define > a minimal install if you can also specify a list of external repositories > to install from. I see how that can cause some complications, but I'm of > the opinion that if I put the disk in or point to the distributions > repository and select minimal install, I'm talking about a minimal install > of the distribution. Heck, If I want a minimal install, don't let me > specify an external repository! If I want a minimal install with external > repositories, THEN I can fall back on using a kickstart. > Your opinion differs from the other customer who wanted a minimal to be stuff from other repos also as they had a business case to getting minimal stuff from each of the repos. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
