Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
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.
There's so much hyperbole there that it obscures your message; we can't
hear the tone of your voice.
I suspect some of the perceived conflict arises from different groups of
users; a default choice that's sane for Fedora might not be sane on an
Enterprise offering.
I belong to the school that says enough to boot and do basic
maintenance, including installing new software, is the basis of a
minimal system.
I'm one who thinks that one should be able to run system-config* tools
without X. I don't necessarily want X on all my systems, and when I
install a Debian server, it's not included.
If a user uses VNC or ssh during the install, then including their
support in the minimal system is sensible.
If users install common supersets after the basic install, then this can
work:
yum install $(getlist MyRepoSet)
yum install $(getlist webserverstuff)
where getlist gets the list of packages, by whatever means.
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.
I don't see a good argument for RH supporting third-party repos in RHEL.
If RH has several RHEL repos, then allowing installers to choose to
enable them is sensible, but enabling them isn't really a general-case
minimal install, whatever a particular customer's requirements might be,
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
