layout of FC5 (and previous) CD's

[Eric Brunson]

Refusing to top quote...

Peter Bieshaar wrote:
> I agree this is inconvenient for me ;) That's why I tried to suggest a 
> solution for my inconvenience. All I suggested is to have dependent 
> packages on the same disk, which I think could be done.
>
> 2006/5/4, Thomas M Steenholdt <tmus at tmus.dk <mailto:tmus at tmus.dk>>:
>
>     Peter Bieshaar wrote:
>     > I didn't mean previous FC CDs. But keeping rpm's more structured on
>     > CD's. So keep the dependent rpm's at least on the same CD. Just did
>     > a mysql server installation, needed 2 CDs.
>     >
>
>     The thing is that although this is inconvenient for you in this case,
>     chances are that other packages are depending on some of the same libs
>     and it may be hard to fit everything that have interdependencies on a
>     single disc, as long as FC is as large as it is atm.
>
>     /Thomas
>
I'm going to toss in a vote of support for Peter's side. 

I tried to do as close to a minimal install as I could by de-selecting 
every thing I could in ananconda and ended up needing all 5 CDs.  FC-4 
was nice for building servers because I could boot and install a minimal 
system from CD 1 and then yum update and install up-to-date packages 
that I needed from the repos.  Trying that with FC-5 was extremely 
frustrating, watching the (in my opinion) totally un-necessary 
dependencies required from CDs 3, 4 and 5, for example bluez-libs sticks 
in my mind as something I just had to roll my eyes at as I wondered what 
on earth it was going to load off CD 5.

Would the simpler request simply be to ask for the "Minimal Install" back?

Thanks,
e.