Making Fedora Core CD #1 Standalone -- Core should continue, but let's define a subset

Tue May 25 13:41:17 UTC 2004

On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:35:03 -0400, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> So what I'm considering is not touching Core itself.  Instead, let's
> define the "absolute minimum" of Core.  If we can do this by making
> sure it is the CD #1 in Core, then it will have minimal impact.  If
> we need to do it by defining a set of "rules" -- maybe a "sub-
> repository" that is still part of Core, but has the contraints that
> no package requires any additional Core packages not in it, then
> let's do it.  I proposed the name "miniCore" or "Quark," but that's
> just a temporary reference I make.
> 
> So, onto defining what is in "Quark" ...

I really really really don't think you have to do something as
elaborate as this.
Just have people in the community who care about this issue work on
the comps.xml file definitions that define what a minimal install
includes and have those packages be part of cd1.  No reason to
formalize with lots and lots of policy.
This has come up repeatedly...and people in the community SEEM
interested but those people wander off the mailinglists and never
actually produce anything of usefulness. Look back in the pre-fc1
release discussions there are several threads about how to better
define a minimal install and the go no where...no where fast.
If you are serious about this...you will work on the comps.xml file
with other people who have an interest in a better defined minimal
install option.

-jef

> 
> > A xorg, gnome basics, system-config-packages etc is all nice and
> > dandy, but ppl who want to setup a server without X would not be
> > pleased by this system at all.
> > Or if was a workstation, and the core CD only had those core apps,
> > wouldnt you always need the extra's cd's? (for say openoffice,
> > mozilla, or whatever is needed)
> 
> It's hard to "please everyone."  Let's not try to break up Fedora
> Core into different CDs for different users.  That's a headache
> that will only add to the burden.  I'm all about minimizing the
> packaging burden.  Besides, with Fedora's new, distributed nature,
> it is not necessary.
> 
> No, what I'm talking about is _ultra_basic_ stuff.  A basic server.
> A basic workstation.  _No_ applications.  _No_ feature rich services.
> 
> You get X and GNOME, *0* apps.  Not even the standard GNOME app spread.
> You get basic services, enough for a basic file, print or web server,
> but with _no_ riches.
> 
> And we _really_ need to start defining the _basic_ scripting support
> required in Perl, Python and/or PHP, etc...  Otherwise, the bloat is
> only going to get worst in packages.  Yes, it's hard to do it now, but
> let's at least _define_ the "recommendations," like Debian did long
> ago.
> 
> For example, packages that require Emacs _only_ because it runs some
> Lisp or other interface for just the package script -- stuff like that
> has just got to end.  Now we can't do it overnight with Core.  Trying to
> do so would only break compatibiltiy and cause additional re-engineering
> headaches.
> 
> But by defining a new set of rules for including in "Quark," we
> can lay a new foundation.  If you're going to be part of the "Quark"
> cornerstone of Fedora, you have to adhere to X, Y and Z.  It won't
> happen overnight, but luckily we can start by making Quark minimal
> in design.
> 
> I'm sure in 3-5 years, Quark will bloat, and then we'll need a
> "sub-Quark" to refresh it.  As you may note, the idea here is not to
> "reduce" Core, but to slowly replace it with a smaller standard.
> Because things bloat.  God, if there is one "bad habit" the social
> design has, it is the tendency to add yet more and more and more
> until many people forget about various things available (there is
> no more proof than that the ultimate social design, governments ;-).
> 
> So the "workaround" is to let what exists be, but slowly move
> people towards a new, smaller version.
> 
> > Another question, is there a seperate development cd? (auto*, gcc*
> > kernel-source, etc), or is that considered core functionality?
> 
> Again, let's not over-complicate this.  Remember, I'm all about
> _minimal_impact_ and _minimal_re-engineering_ effort.
> 
> In a nutshell, let's just let "Core" be as it is.  A slowly bloating
> reference.  With Apt/Yam, we can yank what we need over the Internet.
> For those with limited bandwidth, well, they'll just want the full Core.
> 
> But for those that want to "start simple," that's what Quark will be.
> At least until 3-5 years later when Quark has now bloated.  ;-ppp
> 
> Ahhh, someone could write a thesis on the natural occurrance of
> bloat in software distribution!  The key is to not fight the bloat,
> as that only breaks compatibility and assumptions.  The key is to
> introduce a new, smaller distribution until it bloats, and then
> another, etc...
> 
> So I'm suggesting we do that with "Quark."  A sub-set of Core that
> is just enough to get a basic file/print/web server running, or a
> X workstation with just the bare GNOME interface.  Nothing more.
> 
> --
> Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- b.j.smith at ieee.org
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>