[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Towards a Debian for minimalists



On 7/15/2016 7:35 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Richard Owlett (2016-07-15 13:29:45)
I started similar threads in 2014.
    primarily https://lists.debian.org/5471F258.5020200@cloud85.net
    also      http://lists.debian.org/521F660F.4070008@cloud85.net

Ahh, I didn't recognize your name (sorry!), but certainly remember our
previous conversations. :-)

Last words from you was "I'll try it." about Boxer.  I am curious how
that went.

At the time it didn't. I don't recall why. Yesterday I searched for "Debian boxer" [w/o quotes] using https://duckduckgo.com/ . I did not come away satisfied I understood your goal/rationale/??? .

What should I read? in what order? Assume I had never heard of boxer before.



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.

Thanks: Now that you mention the keyword "menu" I understand you.


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.]

Seems you are mixing terms here:

"Recommends" and "Depends" is tied to packages, not menu items.

Problem with my writing style. I tend to use [...] and {...} to set off thoughts that are loosely related to my main point. In this case my primary metric is reducing the total number of menu items. A secondary metric is reducing the number of "unnecessary" packages installed. [That sentence demonstrates another of my style choices. I use "..." to highlight a word used in a not quite literal manner.]




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.

Ah, right.  On that very very old system, apt-mark does not exist.

You can install aptitude and mark packages as auto-installed, but since
back then the mechanism was not yet integrated into core APT, the system
haven't flagged any packages as such so you will have to do the markup
yourself.


My Jessie install responds with long list.

I suggested you to share that infor as a way for us to move forward
in developing a Blend.

If you don't want to do that, then what do you want here?

I still don't know if my target would precisely meet the definition of a Pure Blend. But I don't see referring to to it as a Debian derivative as it object files will be direct from the Debian repository.

If it were found useful it would be likely distributed as a custom preseed.cfg file and some custom metapackages which included *ONLY* standard Debian executables. For at least my own use there would be a Tcl/Tk script to generate the preseed.cfg file.






  - Jonas



Reply to: