[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Road map--or some such.
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: Road map--or some such. |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:03:44 +0200 |
Maybe it is feasable to use an old version of dpkg which is not yet
that bulky? Actually, I like this idea.
As I said, I am not sure on any point w.r.t. the package manager. I
would like to have something that is small that one-two people can
maintain with ease.
1.) Did you think about what software we want to include? I
strongly favor to not include thousands of redundant window
managers, editors and e-mail clients (and whatever). It is enough
to include the most important packages; of course we have to prefer
GNU software, so we'd use GNU Emacs rather than XEmacs, gcron
rather than Vixie cron. In some cases, we might also want to
provide additional non-GNU packages if they are very popular. Does
this sound like a reasonable policy?
Yes. At most, everything in the GNU project + any packages that a GNU
project depends on + anything that isn't includeded in those two sets
that a user might find useful. If people feel the need for other
things, they can create a archive for it.
2.) Another question is whether to keep the base-system small and
if we find that important, how to do so. For example, including
Perl (which is necessary at least for GNU stow i think)
It (perl) is necessary to build some things in the GNU project (glibc,
coreutils--atleast the testsuite I think, and more).
Personally, I don't think it's essential to have a very small base
system, because a) hard drives are large these days, so it does not
really matter b) tools exist so that we can use them; avoiding them
even if they are useful for us does not sound overly intelligent.
A small base system is indeed not important. Does anyone still
install anything from a floppy set so that this should be warrented?
And no, net-booting/installation does not count. Though being able to
net-boot/install is something that one should be able todo.
What one _could_ do at most is to allow for a "smaller" base system
install, having the installer strip all binaries and libraries;
debugging symbols should be default though.
How should we define the "base system" by the way? Bootstrapable
system (+ installation stuff of course), like the BSDs?
3.) What do you think about having all relevant projects officially
in the same package (like it is done for coreutils)? Then it would
be less work to assign copyright to the FSF (stupid reason, I know,
but still...).
Will think about this, if it is easier to maintain it like that fine
by me. And I might ask rms about it too...
4.) I propose the codename "Liberation" for the first release of
GNU.
Ahh yes, the most important part! :-) Fine by me.
- Road map--or some such., Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/04/19
- Re: Road map--or some such., Wolfgang Jaehrling, 2004/04/19
- Re: Road map--or some such.,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: Road map--or some such., Marco Gerards, 2004/04/20
- Re: Road map--or some such., Wolfgang Jaehrling, 2004/04/20
- Re: Road map--or some such., Marco Gerards, 2004/04/20
- Re: Road map--or some such., Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/04/21
- Re: Road map--or some such., Marco Gerards, 2004/04/21
- Re: Road map--or some such., Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/04/22
- Re: Road map--or some such., Marco Gerards, 2004/04/22
- Re: Road map--or some such., Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/04/21