Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (297 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
- From: Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:24:02 +0100
- Message-id: <20070119102402.GA3767@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> [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
> > people insist on having a "generic minimum set" without having a concrete use
> > case.
>
> Maybe you have missed earlier discussions where three example usecases
> were presented for discussion:
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.
> 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD
> 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest
> 3. running a chroot environment
>
> The intersection of packages for these usecases is what we're looking for.
Why does one have to define this intersection explicitly?
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:59:23AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> [Jan 18. 2007 23:19]:
> > This is the thinko! Why should one have to select a "base package set" and
> > "minimal networking" if he just wants "minimal networking" (whatever that
> > would be)?
>
> There is no need to select both. "minimal networking" would install "base package set"
> through dependencies.
> It just that "minimal networking" is option (can be deselected) but
> "base package set" is not.
So why do we need "base package set" at all?
> To me the question is, which packages (resp. patterns) should be enforced (required)
> by an openSUSE system and which are optional.
That actually depends on your use case. I mean for example on installation
YaST has to enforce installation of a kernel (among other things), thus a
kernel must be part of a package set defining a minimal set YaST must enforce
on installation. But why is it important for you to know whether a kernel is
needed in _all_ possible use cases. I mean when you implement the pattern
for YaST installation you should try to solve _this_ question and not all
other similar problems of the world at the same time.
> If one still wants to de-install one of these packages, the resulting system
> isn't considered openSUSE any more.
Why do you need a set of packages to name "openSUSE"? If a set of packages
fulfilles the specific needs of a use case then the set is fine, if it does
not, it is broken for that use case.
So what to you need this common intersection?
I mean if you feel the need to answer the pure philosophical question on how
this abstract construction has to look like according to your opinion then
head on. I just say that you waste your time, will never come to a serious
conclusion, and kill every serious discussion on related threads trying to
find a pattern for a serious use case.
Robert
--
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@xxxxxxxxx
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
> * Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> [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
> > people insist on having a "generic minimum set" without having a concrete use
> > case.
>
> Maybe you have missed earlier discussions where three example usecases
> were presented for discussion:
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.
> 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD
> 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest
> 3. running a chroot environment
>
> The intersection of packages for these usecases is what we're looking for.
Why does one have to define this intersection explicitly?
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:59:23AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> [Jan 18. 2007 23:19]:
> > This is the thinko! Why should one have to select a "base package set" and
> > "minimal networking" if he just wants "minimal networking" (whatever that
> > would be)?
>
> There is no need to select both. "minimal networking" would install "base package set"
> through dependencies.
> It just that "minimal networking" is option (can be deselected) but
> "base package set" is not.
So why do we need "base package set" at all?
> To me the question is, which packages (resp. patterns) should be enforced (required)
> by an openSUSE system and which are optional.
That actually depends on your use case. I mean for example on installation
YaST has to enforce installation of a kernel (among other things), thus a
kernel must be part of a package set defining a minimal set YaST must enforce
on installation. But why is it important for you to know whether a kernel is
needed in _all_ possible use cases. I mean when you implement the pattern
for YaST installation you should try to solve _this_ question and not all
other similar problems of the world at the same time.
> If one still wants to de-install one of these packages, the resulting system
> isn't considered openSUSE any more.
Why do you need a set of packages to name "openSUSE"? If a set of packages
fulfilles the specific needs of a use case then the set is fine, if it does
not, it is broken for that use case.
So what to you need this common intersection?
I mean if you feel the need to answer the pure philosophical question on how
this abstract construction has to look like according to your opinion then
head on. I just say that you waste your time, will never come to a serious
conclusion, and kill every serious discussion on related threads trying to
find a pattern for a serious use case.
Robert
--
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@xxxxxxxxx
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
| < Previous | Next > |