SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I just have not had as much time to play with my install, and trim the list, and I forgot about the fonts and such when I said ~20. Without the fonts and libaries, it is far closer to 20, but then that is not overly useful.
I do want to trim it further...obviously the xv and xine stuff is not required, but out of my list what else could be trimmed? Which fonts and libaries?
minimal to me, in this regard, is so Firefox still works and looks fine, movies can play etc...that's about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahko
No it isnt. This list is not a minimal X install. Its something else. Something thats hard to understand or put a label at.
It is a list of a minimal* X install, including libraries and fonts, albeit with a FEW unnecessary packages.
*minimal. Not minimum or ultra minimal, just minimal.
What sahko's complaining about is that "minimal X install" is a completely wrong label to put on the list, since unlike gnashley's list it includes packages that aren't in the x/ disk set. Get rid of those packages, and you'd have a "minimal X install".
What sahko's complaining about is that "minimal X install" is a completely wrong label to put on the list, since unlike gnashley's list it includes packages that aren't in the x/ disk set. Get rid of those packages, and you'd have a "minimal X install".
I never meant "minimal x install" to refer to only packages from the x/ disk set.
"minimal X install" refers to all the necessary packages to have a minimal install of X that is useable for desktop stuff, as I stated earlier.
This means font packages and libaries will be required, to accomplish this, and so they are correctly in the list.
Obviously there are a few packages like xine and xv that don't belong, but they are so very few and obvious that it does not make sense to get worked up about them.
Then call it a "minimal desktop install", and put in the necessary packages from other disk sets.
Really, it's important to label things correctly. Anything else is being dishonest.
No, because it is a minimal X install.
A minimal desktop install would include desktop applications, a window manager, etc.
A "minimal X install" does not have to be restricted to the X disk set, unless you deliberately take it like that.
Which is absurd, when I clearly explain that was not the case. There is nothing dishonest about it, just that some people need to sharpen their reading skills.
I never meant "minimal x install" to refer to only packages from the x/ disk set.
"minimal X install" refers to all the necessary packages to have a minimal install of X that is useable for desktop stuff, as I stated earlier.
This means font packages and libaries will be required, to accomplish this, and so they are correctly in the list.
Obviously there are a few packages like xine and xv that don't belong, but they are so very few and obvious that it does not make sense to get worked up about them.
xv and xine are not required for a minimal install of X for desktop stuff.
I feel like everybody is being super semantic for no good reason :|
I don't mean you in particular at all Adam, although I never said or implied xine or xv are required for a minimal install of X or desktop stuff.
You said:
Quote:
"minimal X install" refers to all the necessary packages to have a minimal install of X that is useable for desktop stuff,
So by including xv and xine, you are saying that they are among the necessary packages to have a minimal install of X that is usable for desktop stuff, which is just not the case :-)
And, yes, I am being super semantic. But without semantics, what else do we have? :-)
So by including xv and xine, you are saying that they are among the necessary packages to have a minimal install of X that is usable for desktop stuff, which is just not the case :-)
Well, no, because I have said several times already that xv and xine are included as a mistake, and do not belong in the list.
I have not removed them because they are so glaringly obvious, and because I hoped people would help me with reducing the fonts and libaries, and then of course they would be removed from the final list.
I'm not worried about the semantics -I just want to see where anyone has cut out even one package that isn't needed.
Even from samac's list, most of the libs can be called non-essential. The thing is that it all depedns on what WM and programs you use
Most of us are thinking of only programs in the 'x' package series. To me the best way to define minimal for the purpose of the idea, is to just think of trying to get X to run -perhaps with no window manager at all. For that only a very few libs are needed.
samac's list is the most compact I've seen that looks like it would get you started for nearly any WM or programs. The little extras like fonts and their needed programs are hardets to eliminate.
I find the normal list of -what, 250+ packages? to be obnoxious. But it may be more about understanding what-needs-what or just the idea of only having what you really need -a Boy Scout thing, maybe.
If you were stranded on a desert island with only a PenitumI and a 14K dialup connection, what tools would most want to have there with you?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
