Re: Open letter to Debian community
the size of debian may not be a big issue now, but when do we draw the
line? 5 CD's? a DVD? no we can't go through and declare which of each
group of packages is 'the best', but surely 2-3 fingerd's is
enough? perhaps a meaty 'all bells and whistles' version and a slim
'nothing but the bare essentials' version is all that's needed? (ie bind
vs djbdns). or maybe we do it by popularity? any packages which don't make
it onto the cd go onto supplementary cd's ala redhat's
powertools, and/or as a mirror into sources.list so they appear in
apt? most of us have internet access nowdays and those who don't can use
the supp cds.
i'd say this would make debian a lot easier to install/maintain. a smaller
working set would almost certainly mean higher quality too.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Scott Dier wrote:
> * Victor Vislobokov <firstname.lastname@example.org> [010130 22:11]:
> > First defect, IMHO is that Debian is very big. I thought and I think now,
> > that best size of distribution is one CD. One CD for binaries and one for
> Your best bet is to make a distribution after-the-fact that contains a
> subset of the available packages that fits on a CD with the base
> install. APT supports this, and there is nothing stopping anyone (even
> progeny) from creating a nifty one-cd install.
> You could even (with work) setup something to keep the packages up to
> date on a ftp site.
> I think that the 'fullness' of the distribution is a strength. We
> shouldn't be saying we dont want X package in the distribution when it
> will further the goal of bringing as much Free software to the masses
> that dont necessarly want to install it by hand.