On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 22:46 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:45:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >Steve McIntyre writes:
> >>
> >> The netinsts are meant to have the base system, yes. I can't see
> >> anything obvious myself that we can drop. Maybe time to give up on
> >> powerpc on that image, like we've done on the m-a DVD. Shame, but
> >> there's only so much stuff we can accommodate here. Anybody else have
> >> an opinion here? Frans/Joey?
> >
> >Just a crcy idea: Could the plain i386 kernel be droped instead? That
> >would loose support for i486 and i586 cpus on the m-a CD. But is that
> >needed there?
>
> That's an option, yes. We could strip out the kernels for < 686
> systems here, but I'd like to keep them on if at all possible to make
> this image as universally useful as possible. I'd be more convinced to
> simply drop powerpc instead, like we already did for the multi-arch
> DVD.
Sounds reasonable to me, but then I'm not a powerpc user...
Does the CD image need powerpc, powerpc-smp and powerpc64 kernels?
Perhaps one of powerpc and powerpc-smp could be dropped (presuming that
the smp variant still works on a UP system dropping the UP could well be
reasonable).
Do you have any idea where perl (not perl-base) comes from? python (not
python-minimal) doesn't seem to be in the base system but is on the CD
as well. Similarly nothing seems to pull in binutils or doc-linux-text
deliberately. (I'm picking on these packages because they are the
largest components under pool/main/*)
I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding the technical definition of base
system. I thought it was Priority: important or higher but perl, python
and binutils are all Priority: standard.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
Your happiness is intertwined with your outlook on life.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
