Am Di 23.01.2007 21:26 schrieb Boyd Lynn Gerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Most
> people I work with do not use dhcp. When I have multiple ISP's.
> Usually
> one one assigns IP's via dhcp. In that case I would select dhcp. I
> really dislike it as a default.
So perhaps YaST should install the dhcp p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hans Witvliet schreef:
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 13:59 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> b) have a mis-placed dependancy (like yast modules for radio,tv
> blue-teeth, opensc in a system that lacks the hardware)
This is a point, which might be overtoug
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 13:59 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> >
> > 2) Get the base-packages as slim as possible: not even networking!
> > If i want ethernet/isdn/i2c/??? OR i want to perform an installation via
> > http/ftp/tftp/nfs it is my decision!
> > The only thing that a base-package should
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Hans Witvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> > Why have dhcp, *if* one chooses for static address?
>
> What do others think?
I really would like to see dhcp removed. It should be an additional
choice. This would really speed things up. I have to
Hans Witvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some observations:
> 1) logrotate is a beautifull tool, but should be optional, just like
> sed, (since i'm a perl convert, i abandonned sed, awk)
Those come in via dependencies.
> mkinitrd: afaik, only needed during installation/upgrades, not?
F
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
Well, the default should stay with 'vi' , I agree.
The question is, do we want to enforce this default or allow alternatives ?
and more the question is what incarnation of vi...
I made a search, some time ago, there is no "original vi"
nowaday. Vim is very nice but big, a
Dňa Št 18. Január 2007 10:23 Klaus Kaempf napísal:
> * Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:00]:
> > Lars Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas?
> > >
> >
* J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 18:05]:
> >
> > We could define the functionality "text editor" as a requirement, fulfilled
> > by any of the mentioned packages. So you can't have a minimal system without
> > an editor but you're still free to choose your own.
>
> Think about the cons
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 19:54]:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> >
> > But you still don't know if to choose kernel-default or kernel-bigsmp ;-)
>
> Right, but _this_ decission can never be done by the package resolver but will
> always
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is my try to build a "base" pattern. For me this is aimed for a
> base computer that I can choose to build as a server or a workstation
> that only have the tools and functions the machine need. Like bastion
> dns, web, database server or a smal
Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> "Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Note that in most cases I omitted dependencies, so e.g. glibc in the
>> list below could be removed since it's required by others. grep is
>> not in the list but required by a
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/22/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Then we agree completely. I might not have done it consequently in my
>> patterns, so you find redundancy, please tell me and I fix it ;-)
>>
>> Andreas
>
> Well not sure how you want this
Jim Pye wrote:
10.1 and 10.2 does not handle the default resolution of the very first
screens of the install.
textmode=1
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
Votez pour nous, merci - vote for us, thanks :-)
http://musique.sfrjeunestalents.fr/artiste/Magic-Alliance/
http://photo.sfrjeunestalents.
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 15:49 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> However one thing I see missing, it could however be in things like
>> coreutils, is an editor. Not wanting to start a flame war but vi,
emacs,
>> pico, nano etc.
> That's why I decided to leave this out. I do expect that those
> experts
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 16:56]:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:26:33PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > > In the future, the kernel package should advertise itself via dependencies
> >
> > It does already by t
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 15:50]:
>> Jim Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> I see that openssh is there, good. Having that gives the ability to do a
>>> lot of things remotely if networking is included (Which looks as if it
>>> is
> The minimal system does not need an editor, only the admin does, and the
> perfect editor is the one that is added to the base by the admin.
>
> Think of the minimal system as equal to the foundation of a building.
> The foundation has no need for windows or doors but the people that use
> the b
We could define the functionality "text editor" as a requirement, fulfilled
by any of the mentioned packages. So you can't have a minimal system without
an editor but you're still free to choose your own.
That would great and would probably make everyone "happy"
It could even be extended to ot
* Kenneth Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 17:21]:
>
> The minimal system does not need an editor, only the admin does, and the
> perfect editor is the one that is added to the base by the admin.
>
> Think of the minimal system as equal to the foundation of a building.
> The foundation
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 16:56]:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:26:33PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > In the future, the kernel package should advertise itself via dependencies
>
> It does already by the symbol "kernel".
But you still don't know if to choose kernel-defaul
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:26:33PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> In the future, the kernel package should advertise itself via dependencies
It does already by the symbol "kernel".
Robert
--
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altu
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 16:18 +0100, jdd wrote:
> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
> > That's why I decided to leave this out. I do expect that those
> > experts that use the minimal base system will add their own choice.
>
> I don't agree. A minimal system without any editor is useless.
>
The minimal sy
On 1/22/07, Klaus Kaempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 15:50]:
> Jim Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However one thing I see missing, it could however be in things like
> > coreutils, is an editor. Not wanting to start a flame war but vi, ema
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 15:50]:
> Jim Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andreas
> >
> > I see that openssh is there, good. Having that gives the ability to do a
> > lot of things remotely if networking is included (Which looks as if it
> > is as dhcpcd is there)
> >
On 1/22/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then we agree completely. I might not have done it consequently in my
patterns, so you find redundancy, please tell me and I fix it ;-)
Andreas
Well not sure how you want this information. Checked the zmd-10.2-145.i586.pat
+Prq:
libzypp-z
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 22. 2007 15:51]:
>
> > Not sure how the kernel-default is installed during the installation
> > if it's done with rpm more packages could be removed like mkinitrd.
>
> It's done via some YaST magic,
In the future, the kernel package should advertise its
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
That's why I decided to leave this out. I do expect that those
experts that use the minimal base system will add their own choice.
I don't agree. A minimal system without any editor is useless.
what is the smaller editor available? whatever it is is
irrelevant (I use v
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/19/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> > And also thinks that a pattern should not depend on rpm packages that
>> > other rpm packages included in the pattern also depends on,
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [removed long list]
Thanks - I let others comment first ;-)
> Please add some comments or input what you think about this. I would
> love to see zypper added to this as well but that's me. (Then rpm
> could be removed as zypper depends on it)
Ther
Jim Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas
>
> I see that openssh is there, good. Having that gives the ability to do a
> lot of things remotely if networking is included (Which looks as if it
> is as dhcpcd is there)
>
> However one thing I see missing, it could however be in things like
> cor
1) logrotate is a beautifull tool, but should be optional, just like
sed, (since i'm a perl convert, i abandonned sed, awk)
I didn't think about that one being optional but, well, you're right,
if we are talking about a minimum installation let's have it really
minimum, this way nobody woul
Think minimal install plus the ability to add what _you_ need to it. The
minimal install doesn't need networking only the ability to add as an
extra choice.
Ken Schneider
I agree with you. We really should think minimal and then have the
installation (or post-installation) giving you the possib
Here's a proposal for a "Definition Base System":
Multiuser system with:
* Local login (via /etc/passwd)
* network setup via ethernet
* default filesystems used (ext3) directly (without evms, lvm,
mdraid etc)
* no services running by default
My questions for discussion are especiall
Here is my try to build a "base" pattern. For me this is aimed for a
base computer that I can choose to build as a server or a workstation
that only have the tools and functions the machine need. Like bastion
dns, web, database server or a small and working graphical
workstation. So this is not fo
Hello,
Am Freitag, 19. Januar 2007 11:47 schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
> ksymoops
If I get the package description right, ksymoops is a debugging tool for
kernel error messages. I doubt you need it on a minimal system ;-)
Additionally, no package depends on it - I could rpm -e it even on my
full-blo
On Saturday 20 January 2007 12:51, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> I am happy with the base system we have now (10.2), and do *not* want
> any major changes.
The present status is that we need small base that can be expanded.
How to achieve this is a topic of this thread, but obviously no one wants
maj
I am happy with the base system we have now (10.2), and do *not* want
any major changes.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 21:33 -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
> On Thursday 18 January 2007 02:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a
> > bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can
> > do.
> ...
>
> I would set target to a
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 10:52 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As Robert wrote, I think we should first define what kind of "minimal
> > package sets" we want/need.
>
> And I made a proposal for that one.
>
> > From the discussion up to this point, the
On Fri 19 Jan 2007 02:38:32 NZDT +1300, Jan Kupec wrote:
> > For 1., a minimal YaST or zypper would be essential, I agree.
>
> installed size of libzypp + zypper is cca 7.2 MB
I see this as essential. A system so small that I can't conveniently
install more software is no good to me. When I need
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 11:47 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> "Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Could we perhaps see a list of what you so far put in the "base" or do
> > you need more time to tinker with it?
>
> Here's my current list - but it depends on the definition that we
> h
Andreas
I see that openssh is there, good. Having that gives the ability to do a
lot of things remotely if networking is included (Which looks as if it
is as dhcpcd is there)
However one thing I see missing, it could however be in things like
coreutils, is an editor. Not wanting to start a flame
* Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 19. 2007 13:11]:
>
> I am a firm believer in that rpm packages should depend on the
> functions they need. No rpm package should take for granted that
> something is installed in the "base" pattern. I also hate it when
> single rpm packages depends on pat
On 1/19/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am a firm believer in that rpm packages should depend on the
> functions they need. No rpm package should take for granted that
> something is installed in the "base" pattern. I also hate it w
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 19. 2007 12:36]:
[...]
> For instance bash is often listed as being part
> of a minimal installation pattern for a normal system installation. This is
> wrong! For _using_ an installed system bash is not needed. It is obviously
> needed for some other p
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 19. 2007 11:24]:
>
> No, I did not miss that discussion but I can't see why all these use cases
> have to be unified into a single use case that just does not exist in reality.
Its not a unification, its what these use cases have in common.
>
> So why d
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> "Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Note that in most cases I omitted dependencies, so e.g. glibc in the
> list below could be removed since it's required by others. grep is
> not in the list but required by aaa_base.
Oh, the dependencies are interesting too
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am a firm believer in that rpm packages should depend on the
> functions they need. No rpm package should take for granted that
> something is installed in the "base" pattern. I also hate it when
I agree - and if this is not the case, it's worth a
On 1/19/07, jdd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Schiele wrote:
> No, we only need it if we don't do the patterns in the right way as described
> above. Although people _know_ that dependencies are resolved automatically,
> according to the way they do patterns they have not yet _realized_ it.
Robert Schiele wrote:
No, we only need it if we don't do the patterns in the right way as described
above. Although people _know_ that dependencies are resolved automatically,
according to the way they do patterns they have not yet _realized_ it.
possible :-)
as of bash, for example, there a
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:11:23PM +0100, jdd wrote:
> Robert Schiele wrote:
>
> >So why do we need "base package set" at all?
>
> may be this package set don't have to be seen by the final
> user, but it have to be defined not to have to duplicate
> it's list in any of the situations we have a
Robert Schiele wrote:
So why do we need "base package set" at all?
may be this package set don't have to be seen by the final
user, but it have to be defined not to have to duplicate
it's list in any of the situations we have already seen
in fact this sub minimal list will be a dependency
Klaus Kaempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 19. 2007 10:53]:
>>
>> Definition Base System:
>> Purpose: Minimal booting system running on real hardware
>> Multiuser system with:
>> * Local login (via /etc/passwd)
>> * network setup via ethernet
>>
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could we perhaps see a list of what you so far put in the "base" or do
> you need more time to tinker with it?
Here's my current list - but it depends on the definition that we
have. Since I'm not sure whether we have consensus I didn't want to
sha
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 23:04]:
> > As I already said this is the empty set because for _every_ package you
> > name I
> > can find a use case where this one is not needed. I don't get it why some
> > peopl
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
I consider networking essential - or do you have real use cases where
networking is not needed at all?
of course.
why should we have network? stanbdalone machines are nice.
modem connection are still frequent (and in this case we
don't have network), USB ADSL are not r
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 19. 2007 10:53]:
>
> Definition Base System:
> Purpose: Minimal booting system running on real hardware
> Multiuser system with:
> * Local login (via /etc/passwd)
> * network setup via ethernet
> * default filesystems used (ext3) directly (witho
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 19. 2007 10:53]:
>
> "very small with network" is the one that I personally like to have as
> "Minimal Base Pattern":
>
> Definition Base System:
> Purpose: Minimal booting system running on real hardware
> Multiuser system with:
> * Local login (v
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 23:19]:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:55:54AM +1100, Graham Smith wrote:
> > What might be needed is a "base package set" plus a number of extra pattern
> > sets to cover specific jobs like:-
> >
> > a) minimal networking
> > b) package management
On 1/19/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "minimal" system for 10.1 had a "rather large foot print" to put it
> mildly, and got worse on 10.2.
So, let's work together to get it smaller again - I'm down right now
to 400 MB. Still far too much but now it gets more tricky...
> I
* Graham Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 22:56]:
>
> What might be needed is a "base package set" plus a number of extra pattern
> sets to cover specific jobs like:-
>
> a) minimal networking
> b) package management
> c) virtualised systems
Right.
Make it as small as possible, but not
Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As Robert wrote, I think we should first define what kind of "minimal
> package sets" we want/need.
And I made a proposal for that one.
> From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few
> interesting proposals:
> - chroot (that's probabl
Richard Bos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op donderdag 18 januari 2007 23:06, schreef Pascal Bleser:
>> From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few
>> interesting proposals:
>> - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there)
>> - very small without networ
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 23:04]:
> >
> > So, SOMEONE needs to take the lead and SET parameters for *minimal* and
> > let everybody add to that to achieve what they desire as *minimal*.
> >
> > You are correct that a consensus will not be reached.
> >
> > 1. Set a mini
Hans Witvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Well, LVM would be the wrong example.
> It should not be a black-or-white situation:
>
> Very early on, a hardware detection should be done.
> And, for instance, only if tv-harware is found, only then the yast
> modules for confifuring tv
On Thursday 18 January 2007 08:39, S Glasoe wrote:
> Could this be the Damn Small openSUSE Linux equivalent at less than ~50MB?
> Could this be a Rescue System too? Would it be able to NFS/FTP/HTTP to
> openSUSE repositories for the rest of the patterns?
I should have read all posts.
I would vote
On Thursday 18 January 2007 02:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a
> bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can
> do.
...
I would set target to a basic system that can run and add more packages in a
first inst
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 23:30 +0100, Richard Bos wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 januari 2007 23:06, schreef Pascal Bleser:
> > From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few
> > interesting proposals:
> > - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there)
> > - very sma
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:03 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications.
> >
> > Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base'
> > pattern first.
> > Is it for
> > 1. installing a really minimal but s
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:02 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> "Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
> > install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
> > use a network source for installation and upd
Op donderdag 18 januari 2007 23:06, schreef Pascal Bleser:
> From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few
> interesting proposals:
> - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there)
> - very small without network (if that's of any use at all)
> - very small
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:55:54AM +1100, Graham Smith wrote:
> What might be needed is a "base package set" plus a number of extra pattern
> sets to cover specific jobs like:-
>
> a) minimal networking
> b) package management
> c) virtualised systems
>
> You would then select the "base package
Pascal Bleser wrote:
As Robert wrote, I think we should first define what kind of "minimal
package sets" we want/need.
think by function: write the use, then the result
- - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there)
I'm not very aware of that, however I have a us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Schiele wrote:
[...]
> So what people actually mean when they say "minimal package set" is actually
> either a "what-_I_-want-at-least-on-my-system package set" or a
> "what-is-needed-for-a-specific-job pattern set". In the first case you will
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:23:41PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-18-07 15:54]:
> [...]
> > So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss
> > about a minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a
> > new system or a patt
On Friday 19 January 2007 07:53, Robert Schiele wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]:
> > > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots
> > > which are created for running daemo
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-18-07 15:54]:
[...]
> So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss
> about a minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a
> new system or a pattern that should be installed for doing this or
> that but not mix up everyth
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]:
> > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots
> > which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are
> > smaller than any packag
* Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 17:14]:
>
> Inside. Outside implies downtime.
Inside has the risk of breaking your system if an update is broken.
Outside does not necessarily mean a long downtime. Imagine the
following.
- create a copy of the virtual image
- loopback mount it
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]:
>> So you need some convinent way to install software. You also want security
>> updates for
>> them. I don't see how xen guests are that much different than a minimum
>> system on real hardware.
>
> Depends on how
* Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]:
> Klaus Kaempf wrote:
>
> > For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a
> > way to install the application you want to run virtualized.)
>
> Xen: no. You don't use xen guests just to boot to the bash prompt,
> usually
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications.
>
> Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base'
> pattern first.
> Is it for
> 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD ?
yes.
> 2. running a (Xen) virtual
On Thursday 18 January 2007 02:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a
> bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can
> do.
>
> I thought about the following:
> * make the existing base system pattern really minimal
>
* Jonathon M. Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 15:21]:
> I would have to throw in on the side of networking being part of base,
> although I realize the enlargement that would create due to the amount
> of drivers required.
Drivers is another good point. Would the 'minimal base' include a
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 09:52 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> A good idea,
>
> I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for
> installing more packages.
> In my opinion it is not neccessary to have a working network for a really
> small system.
>
A small system run
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:56]:
>> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
>> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
>> use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper?
>
> As w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfgang Rosenauer schreef:
> Klaus Kaempf wrote:
>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]:
>>> A good idea,
>>>
>>> I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for
>>> installing more packages.
>> If we ar
Am Do 18.01.2007 10:27 schrieb Ludwig Nussel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, since yast asks for the root password in 2nd stage a system
> without yast would be somewhat useless as you couldn't even log in
> after installation.
Thats why I wrote: "deinstall after installation".
So we can walk trough
On 1/18/07, Klaus Kaempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:56]:
>
> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
> use a network source for installation and u
* Ludwig Nussel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:27]:
> Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]:
> > >
> > > I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for
> > > installing more packages.
> >
> > If we are talking about a _rea
* Wolfgang Rosenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:27]:
> Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> >
> > I agree. Thinking of virtualized systems, sharing filesystems is sufficient.
>
> Really. For what to have a virtualized system if you can't really
> connect to it?
To do data processing for example, i.e.
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]:
> >
> > I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for
> > installing more packages.
>
> If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should
> include RPM at most but not YaST. Ya
Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]:
>> A good idea,
>>
>> I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for
>> installing more packages.
>
> If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should include RPM
> at most
> b
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:00]:
> Lars Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas?
> >
> > Perhaps we can discuss if we need an additional option "R
* Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:56]:
>
> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
> use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper?
As written before, I'd see suc
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]:
>
> A good idea,
>
> I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for
> installing more packages.
If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should include RPM at
most
but not YaST.
YaST is a conveni
On 1/18/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
> use a network source for installation and update perhaps
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
> use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? And I
> personally never install a machine nowd
Lars Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas?
>
> Perhaps we can discuss if we need an additional option "Remove after
> installation" in the YaST2-Packagemanager - for Example:
Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas?
Perhaps we can discuss if we need an additional option "Remove after
installation" in the YaST2-Packagemanager - for Example: Some
YaST2-Modules can be deleted, when the ins
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
