Understood. Although I don't exactly know what's the "original purpose" I'll try to make sure no big radical changes are made without consensus from the community :)
Thanks both of you! -Santiago. On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:41:56PM +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > Yeah, that was the "and please don't get it the wrong way" part which > obviously did not work. I thought I just put this out there as I > already got PRs and mails from different people who wanted to make the > image more minimal by removing files from packages or provide > different images for all kind of uses cases. > > I just wanted to avoid frustration beforehand but not discourage your > work. I probably failed on this one :-) > > Greetings, > > Pierre > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski via > arch-dev-public <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2018-03-12 05:33, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > >> Thanks for digging this up again. You may use the github issue or > >> project system to plan the different steps. Also (and please don't get > >> it the wrong way) let's keep the purpose I intended for our Docker > >> image intact. > > > > No one has suggested changing "the purpose". I'm not sure what is > > unclear in Santiago's mail. > > > > Bartłomiej
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
