Re: revising the first cd contents...
On Thursday 24 June 2004 04:57, Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
--cut--
> > installing x-window-system-core gnome and kde (task desktop) downloads
> > 353 MB installing x-window-system-core will download 43 MB
> > installing x-window-system-core + gnome will download 197 MB
> > installing x-window-system-core + kde will download 215 MB
>
> Well, that kind of raises the question: Maybe it's time to put just one
> of KDE or GNOME on the first CD. How would we make such a decision though?
> I'm not interested in large flamewars.
I can not comment on "kde vs gnome for CD1", but I would like to know how the
packages mentioned on forcd1 are selected ? Sorry I didnt find that in the
documentation ! I guess we should ask http://popcon.debian.org/... and I
think there are some of them which might be on the CD>1. For example, here
are some packages from forcd1 from debian-cd 2.2.17, I think could be on
CD>1:
deborphan
localepurge
chdrvfont
libmailtools-perl
twm (we'll have gnome or kde, that's more than enough ;-)
wmaker (again)
wmakerconf
whiptail
doc-base (the per package docs in /usr/share/doc/<package> will suffice for a
system installed from CD1, expansions later ;-)
libsasl-modules-plain (too early for SASL ?)
libsasl-digestmd5-plain (again)
discover
read-edid
mdetect
kudzu (we already have discover, so one should suffice)
aptitude (aptitude or dselect?)
popularity-contest (It is too early to popcon from system installed just from
CD1)
hotplug (not sure how this could expands discover or kudzu)
Let's see what popcon says for them ...
> > Well, that is the data I've got, maybe it is not too usefull, I know
> > this, but it is all I could get in this last days (not too much free time
> > lately and less time in the future).
> >
> > I'd like you to express your opinion on how we should build, what we
> > should have on forcd1 task, if we should build with or without recommends
> > and suggests (this doesn't mean that recommended and sugested packages
> > aren't put on the cds, just that we don't try to pull them in with the
> > package that suggests them, so they are added later), ...
>
> What do we want our CDs to be, and how are they intended to be used for
> sarge? In the past, the first CD is all that has been widely sold/given
> away, and it has included enough to get a useful desktop system and do a
> few other tasks on the CD without networking. I see some sentiment that
> CDs are increasingly too small to do that, and we have DVDs, so maybe
> it's not worth Debian's time to do it[1]. Maybe our CDs are just a way
> to get an entire Debian release by mail, but how many people do that,
> let alone feeding 13 or more CDs into apt to actually use them all?
> Maybe our CDs are just a way to get onto the network and install the
> rest of Debian -- the sarge netinst CDs sidestep the size issues and
> have been quite popular at doing this, and we could release with no full
> CDs at all, or with them very de-emphasised as they are now. I'm not
> asking retorically what we want sarge CDs to be for; I really don't
> know.
>
> If the purpose of the first binary CD is still partly to be a useful
> offline system, then the best packages to try to put on it is a desktop
> system. Or a bundle of some really rocking games. Other stuff is too
> special purpose, or really needs the system to be online. OTOH, live CDs
> are popular now, maybe a live CD that can also install debian with d-i
> would be more useful.
We already have dfsbuild in Sid (http://people.debian.org/~jgoerzen/dfs/) for
users to ganerate thier custom LiveCD's (hmm, debian-installer + base /or
standard/ + rescue tools is not a bad idea as package selection for
dfsbuild), but I think a big project like Debian can not live his users just
with a LiveCD prebuilt per architecture, therefor generating LiveCD's for
download will be as an additional tasks, if any. Let's transfer that task of
generating LiveCD's to the users or their are some whishlist bug filed by the
users asking for ready for download debian livecd's ?
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <keyserver.bu.edu ; pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: