On 27 December 2012 11:28, Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> wrote: > Le Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:14:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 02:11:52PM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: >> > How is it a slippery slope if it is driven by data? >> > >> > Seriously, figure out a way to ask users what they want. popcon isn't >> > going to be all that useful here becuase of the wild diversity of systems >> > that exist in popcon. But you can certainly just ask users to list any >> > optional packages that they'd like to see on images. Or have a subset >> > of popcon just for cloud images. >> >> Data is always good to have so, sure, let's find out ways to do that. >> But I urge to figure out how to gather data that distinguish the wishes >> that are cloud-specific wrt the others. >> >> For everything that is not cloud specific, I think we should strive to >> make the corresponding improvements where they belong, i.e. in Debian >> default installation choices. And I'm sure there is room for >> improvements there, because there is always room for improvement :-) >> >> Here, I think we should be mostly concerned for cloud-specific needs >> and, sure enough, we should add them to the pre-built images we offer. > > Hi all, > > I think that the Debian defaults should be based on common practice. In that > sense, I think that we should first work out a package list that suits our > needs, and only after, if we can demonstrate that it is of general interest, > propose that it may be reflected on Debian's standards. > > It would be tempting to use package priorities, with "important" representing > the "bare minimum" discussed earlier, and "standard" representing the images > that are ready to use for some simple tasks. However, this would mean > downgrading > the priority of exim4 and raising the priority of openssh. I do not > volunteer to > lead this discussion... > > I think that this rules out bothering debian-b...@lists.debian.org until we > have a good record of providing images that are used broadly, except perhaps > to > propose a new "tasksel" task (or more if relevant). > > We therefore need a good definition of what is minimal, in terms of packages > and in terms of image size. For instance, on the Amazon cloud, the size of > instances is defined in gigabytes, and our images are currently configured to > use 8 Gb volumes by default. > > For the cloud-specific part, the defintion of what is minimal also needs some > arguments, that can for instance justify why we ship systems with ssh by > default and not other packages, as it is equally easy to install them with > user metadata. > > Lastly, there are packages like "less", or "psmisc" (/usr/bin/killall), that > have a neglectable footprint in terms of cost and security. I understand the > argument of slippery slope, but if we consider the 8 Gb images discussed > above, > there is enough space to install some of them. If we all agree that the > contents of the images is not set on stone (that is, we can remove "less" when > it proves to be deleterious to some users), why not satisfying our current > users (including myself), instead of focusing on the leanest solution, that I > think is likely to attract less users. > > Cheers, > > -- > Charles Plessy > Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121227102816.ga12...@falafel.plessy.net > Up until this instance the counter arguments had me swayed, but you do make some good points. I am currently writing my master thesis, so I do not have the time to participate in any discussions right now, I will follow the discussions though and happily implement whatever you guys decide :-)
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
