On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Dave Miner wrote: > Ethan Quach wrote: >> >> >> Jens Deppe wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Should I expect that a manifest without any packages defined, when used in >>> an install, would result in the base set of packages being installed >>> (SUNWcsd, SUNWcs, slime_install and entire)? >> >> No, that list isn't baked in anywhere, so the manifest needs it there >> for now. I believe there's an RFE for something similar to what >> you're asking about, however we really need to define what >> constitutes a "base set" of packages for installation; and perhaps >> different sets for different types of installations - applicance, >> minimal install, etc.. >> > > I'm doubtful that installing some hard-coded package list when none is > provided is at all a good idea in terms of evolving the technology, or in > using it with multiple different distributions. Defining standard package > set names is useful, and providing examples of using them as well, but I > would prefer to regard a manifest which didn't specify any packages as > incorrect.
So, I understand that having a hard coded list of packages that gets installed by default (as in, when no packages are specified in the manifest) is not going to be ideal across different distributions. But does that point to the need for having a different set of defaults on a per-distribution basis or not having defaults altogether? In some ways having a default for the package list is similar to having a default target disk (which we obviously do pick). So, why get rid of default packages altogether? Alok
