Re: Towards a Debian for minimalists

[Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net>]

On 7/14/2016 10:58 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Quoting Richard Owlett (2016-07-14 16:19:28)
> > Please not the subject line is
> >       "Towards a Debian for minimalists"
> >                     *NOT*
> >       "Towards a minimalist Debian"
> > The distinction, as I see it, revolves around the  difference
> > between one's "mindset" as distinct from one's "goals"
>
> Not sure I get the distinction.

That is OK ;/
I myself have a problem MYSELF *defining* the difference.
Thank you again for "reading" what I actually write.
Comprehending what I write is more my responsibility than yours.

> Do you mean that the resulting system
> is not necessarily tiny, but that each each piece is carefully
> considered if relevant to include?

"Tiny" per se is not my goal.
If we were talking furniture rather than software, I might be 
promoting Shaker &/or Amish aesthetics. Do you get my 'drift'? ???

> If so, I am a minimalist myself :-D
>
>
> > I started similar threads in 2014.
>
> Can you provide more hints about where/what you wrote in 2014?

Your wish is my command ;/   *LOL*
  primarily https://lists.debian.org/5471F258.5020200@cloud85.net
  also      http://lists.debian.org/521F660F.4070008@cloud85.net

> Or do you perhaps mean this in 2013?:
>
> Quoting Richard Owlett (2013-03-11 14:34:59)
> > Does something aimed at those with little or no connectivity
> > using only components from the Debian repositories qualify
> > as a potential "Pure Blend".
> >
> > I envision the user having the multi CD/DVD set of the
> > current distro, a new installer iso resembling current
> > netinst or bussinesscard, and one of a selection of new
> > preseed.cfg files.


I'm *not* as restrictive as I was. I'm no longer on "dialup". 
*HOWEVER* I am now on a high speed link but still have a 
bandwidth limit. I'm working on a post which *may* make my target 
audience clearer. In order to cover contingencies, I'm 
restricting my "solutions" to those which would be viable for 
those purchasing DVD sets.
*NOTE BENE* Not a _necessary but a *sufficient* constraint.

> > As long as embedded systems were inherently resource constrained I
> > found some common goals in the Embedian(sp??) Project. This group
> > seems to be the closest match to my mindset.
>
> I guess you mean the Debian-derived Emdebian: http://emdebian.org/

Probably IIRCC

> > My definitions include:
> >    1. Development and target systems shall be i386 only.
> >    2. The operative metric for "minimal" will be minimize package
> >       count for currently desired functionality.
> >       This focuses on current defined needs over potential future
> >       goals.
> >       Which leads to recognizing my "end product" might be a
> >       flexible alternative to Debian's installer, rather than a
> >       Debian  Blend (pure or otherwise).
>
> If by "i386" you mean the system supports Intel 80386 CPUs, then
> unfortunately that is no longer the case with Debian, so will involve
> creating and maintaining a derivative which recompiles core parts of the
> system with compiler flags no longer tested and maintained in Debian.
>
> If by "i386" you mean the Debian label for 32-bit Intel CPUs more
> generally - which effectively means i686 with Jessie and newer (and even
> Squeeze too?), then it is a well supported use of Debian as-is. :-)

I be as vague as Debian ;/
The DVD sets I purchase give options for 586 &/or 686 kernels.
The Jessie DVD's I have are labeled "Debian 8.4.0 i386".

> > As an example of where I'm headed I've done two Squeeze instals
> > [enough has changed with Jessie that I've not accomplished comparisons
> > yet ;]
> >
> > Counting all applications entries under "Applications" there are:
> >    11 entries for my minimal Squeeze install [1.5 GB on disk]
> >    67 entries for a default Squeeze install  [3.0 GB on disk]
>
> What do you mean by "entries"?


In the top left of the GUI is a top level menu titled "Applications".
Below that are multiple sub-menus.
My 'totals' are clickable items in lowest submenus.

> Do you perhaps mean packages explicitly
> installed (as opposed to auto-installed due to dependencies)?

No. How many choices am I given.
[I favor disabling "Recommends" in favor of moving the desired 
elements to "Depends" of custom metapackages.]



> For each of your systems, what might make sense to share and discuss
> without pushing those actual GBs of data over the wire is the output of
> the following command for each environment:
>
>    apt-mark showmanual

neither Squeeze install recognizes that as valid command.
My Jessie install responds with long list.


> > I have to investigate the current crop of metapackages used by the
> > installer and write a coherent description of my target audience.
>
> Looking forward to that.
>
>
>   - Jonas