On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Robert Schiele <rschiele@gmail.com> [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@gmail.com> [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@gmail.com "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."