On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 22:46 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:45:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >Steve McIntyre <email@example.com> writes: > >> > >> The netinsts are meant to have the base system, yes. I can't see > >> anything obvious myself that we can drop. Maybe time to give up on > >> powerpc on that image, like we've done on the m-a DVD. Shame, but > >> there's only so much stuff we can accommodate here. Anybody else have > >> an opinion here? Frans/Joey? > > > >Just a crcy idea: Could the plain i386 kernel be droped instead? That > >would loose support for i486 and i586 cpus on the m-a CD. But is that > >needed there? > > That's an option, yes. We could strip out the kernels for < 686 > systems here, but I'd like to keep them on if at all possible to make > this image as universally useful as possible. I'd be more convinced to > simply drop powerpc instead, like we already did for the multi-arch > DVD. Sounds reasonable to me, but then I'm not a powerpc user... Does the CD image need powerpc, powerpc-smp and powerpc64 kernels? Perhaps one of powerpc and powerpc-smp could be dropped (presuming that the smp variant still works on a UP system dropping the UP could well be reasonable). Do you have any idea where perl (not perl-base) comes from? python (not python-minimal) doesn't seem to be in the base system but is on the CD as well. Similarly nothing seems to pull in binutils or doc-linux-text deliberately. (I'm picking on these packages because they are the largest components under pool/main/*) I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding the technical definition of base system. I thought it was Priority: important or higher but perl, python and binutils are all Priority: standard. Ian. -- Ian Campbell Your happiness is intertwined with your outlook on life.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part