Sorry, James, damned reply button. As usual, people look at principle over pragmatism in such discussions.
While a bare-install/full-install option certainly sounds interesting, Could we look at what we're arguing over? 3MB installed, including dependencies. It is in the installation already, plenty of people seem to want it to remain that way, so it seems the only option worth discussing is whether to have install-time options for "bare/normal" packages. Otherwise, it seems it should stay as it is. On 6/23/08, James Dinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ..yet you're ignoring my request for a rationale. > > > > -- > > Soren Hansen > > I have done nothing of the sort. If I was unclear on something, maybe > we could hash it out off-list. In the end, however, I think we are > both (and a few others) hard set in our opinions. There seems to be a > lot of praise for the "bare install" option in the installer, and no > one has said anything against it. Since that will make this all a > moot point, maybe we should move on and focus on that. > > James > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- Luke L. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
