Package groups are far from reasonable

[panomax]

The classification of package groups is always a problem in Red Hat and Fedora. As seen from the yumgroups.xml, this problem still remains in FC3 T1. Following are just some examples of the unreasonableness of current group classification.

1. The distinction of Core and Base is vague.

2. There are many packages that are not member of the Core or Base group, but are required by some packages in the Core or Base group. Since Core and Base are always implicitly installed, these packages are then always implicitly installed. Why not just include these essential packages to the Core or Base groups?

3. Dialup group is required by the Base group. So Dialup group is no less important than the Base group according to current classification. But now, wideband networking is getting more and more popular. Dialup access is no long a "must" item. Why insist using it on each and every Linux box?

4. Many non-essential packages are included in the Core or Base groups. Sendmail and software Raid are just examples of this kind of packages. How many ordinary users will need sendmail runing on their desktop or laptop?

5. The designation of "mandatory, default, optional" should be more prudent. Many mandatory or default packages should actually be optinal. One example is the up2date.

6. Many software packages are still depending on other old packages rather than using the most recent version. So we often see "ugly" package names such as GConf vs. GConf2, gtk+ vs. gtk2, libpng10 vs. libpng, etc. Imaging, in 10 years, we may need to install gtk+, gtk2, gtk3, gtk4, gtk5, ..., gtkhtml, gtkhtml2, gtkhtml3, gtkhtml4, ..., all on our machine at the same time!

7. Even if you choose to only install KDE, lots of Gnome packages are still installed by default: gnome-desktop, gnome-keyring, gnome-libs, gnome-panel, ......

I hope the classification of package groups could be seriously reorganized and optimized. At least, the Core and Base groups should be truly minimal and essential. More groups and more levels of groups can be created if necessary. Then administrators can add what they like to the top of Core and Base, easily.

[panomax]

You don't care if you install a lot of packages which you never use? Then your yum or up2date waste lots of network traffic, CPU, HD to download and update those uesless packages.

[giuliano]

Well, I'd like to have a "really really minimal system" with nothing more than the base utils and rpm/yum. I can't believe the base system is as large a 700 MB :)

giuliano

[cathal]

I agree!!!

[panomax]

Please suggest the minimal "Core" if the Fedora developers are too busy to care about our request. BTW, there should be some developers who check this forum, right?

I managed to reduce my total installed packages to just 400. My box is used as a web application server with Zope, PostgreSQL, Samba, etc.

[crackers]

That's good for you, but my minimal install is right at 600 at the moment. The base installs are those that the RH/Fedora developers would implement the most common sets of functionalities for the broadest audience.

[panomax]

That's good for you, but my minimal install is right at 600 at the moment. The base installs are those that the RH/Fedora developers would implement the most common sets of functionalities for the broadest audience.

What is the use of your box, server, desktop?

Right now, the base is just too-inclusive. A better strategy could be becoming more modular and adding more fine-grained groups. The most important part is the minimal core + base. Then user can add more groups according to her demands, not according to what were predetermined as "most common" by Fedora developers.

For example, instead of using just one database group and designating one kind of db as default, we can define several db groups: postgresql, mysql, Berkeley, etc. It is within this level of fine-grained groups that the default and optional make more sense. For instance, postgresql has some defaults: server, client, lib, and some optional: dev, pl, python, tcl, jdbc, doc, contrib, etc.

I remember that someone rejected Fedora because he thought the too-inclusive base was too ridiculous, and many packages were not prudent (or too loose) when defining their dependencies.

[crackers]

Keep in mind that going "more fine-grained" for the smaller segment of the target audience actually costs more, is harder to maintain, etc. As I mentioned in another thread, the RH packagers need to go for the "best fit for the largest possible audience." The target audience is not Linux gurus - it's "normal" folks who just want a working computer.

As to what my box is - it's whatever I need it to be at the moment. Sometimes server, sometimes "workstation," sometimes "desktop" (like now). The advantage with Linux systems is the package management - I can customize to whatever degree I need/want.

For the person who "rejected Fedora because he thought the too-inclusive base was too ridiculous" - I wish them well in Debian-land, then.

[panomax]

Keep in mind that going "more fine-grained" for the smaller segment of the target audience actually costs more, is harder to maintain, etc. As I mentioned in another thread, the RH packagers need to go for the "best fit for the largest possible audience." The target audience is not Linux gurus - it's "normal" folks who just want a working computer.
I cannot agree with your opinion, which sounds like an excuse for laziness, or an alibi for not pursuing perfectionism. ^_^

Fine-grained groups are not for the smaller segment of audience. They can, to the contrary, benefit the largest possible audience. What is the most important added value of a distribution? Reasonable packaging! So efforts on providing a more reasonable group mechanism will not be wasted. Rather, they will be much appreciated by most users, newbies and experts alike. They will make both deveopers and users life easier, not harder!

I don't think folks who just want a working computer need sendmail (from the base group) running on their desktop or laptop. If those users are your target, thanks for supporting my point: since they don't need sendmail, please remove it from the base group. The existing grouping mechanism cannot serve even those users well, let along gurus.

Just one more example, even you choose the database group for PostgreSQL, postgres-dev (which is required if you want to install database adapters such as psycopg) is not installed, nor does it apper in the package list. It requires an experienced user to know its name and manually install.

Someone already critisized the too many default services running in a Fedora setting. Remember, MS also choose the strategy to close all doors first, then open only those necessary doors.

I cannot believe Fedora developers will ignore critics and comments on their number one feature: the packaging mechanism. If they still strive to make Fedora the best, group mechanism needs to be revised, seriously!

[Ug]

3. Dialup group is required by the Base group. So Dialup group is no less important than the Base group according to current classification. But now, wideband networking is getting more and more popular. I disagree completely with this. I'm forced on to a 56K, because where I live you can't get broadband. So why discriminate against me simply because I cannot get a higher capacity internet connection? Thats not fair.

Like crackers said - you will find that a lot of users just want their programs to work without a ny faffing about. If your a dialup user and a lot of programs are removed from the core, then it can take a lot of painful downloading to get those programs. Its a nightmare updating Fedora as it is on a dialup, let alone having to download a lot of software.

I keep seeing this argument appear. And to be honest i find it quite pointless.

[panomax]

I disagree completely with this. I'm forced on to a 56K, because where I live you can't get broadband. So why discriminate against me simply because I cannot get a higher capacity internet connection? Thats not fair.

Like crackers said - you will find that a lot of users just want their programs to work without a ny faffing about. If your a dialup user and a lot of programs are removed from the core, then it can take a lot of painful downloading to get those programs. Its a nightmare updating Fedora as it is on a dialup, let alone having to download a lot of software.

I keep seeing this argument appear. And to be honest i find it quite pointless.
You seem to not understand my point. Nobody discriminates against you ^_^

I suggest to remove the dialup group from the default user-invisible state to a user-visible state. You don't need to download anything. All packages are intact on the CD. Only the organization of groups change!

At least, the core and base groups should be truly minimal. You can add those non-essential to a "general" group. But please allow users like me to not select this general group. We don't like to be forced to install the bloated core and base!

If you need dialup (nowadays, the majority of Internet users should know the meaning of dialup access), you just add that group to your installation. For user like me who don't need dialup, why enforce us to install those useless programs? As you said: Thats not fair!

Fine-grained groups can help both of us: you can add the dialup group, I can just ignore it. Right? Actually, your comments seem to be "pointless" ^_^

[crackers]

If you don't want your so-called "bloat," you are quite free to go elsewhere. And, with your attitude, I suggest you do just that. Example:

I cannot agree with your opinion, which sounds like an excuse for laziness, or an alibi for not pursuing perfectionism.

You obviously have not worked on a large-scale project. This one statement is so arrogant, overblown, and downright silly, your little cute smiley at the end makes it even more ridiculous.

There are four perfectly reasonable selections on installation, that satisfies the majority of what RedHat business analysts and engineers have determined to be what the target user-base of the system will want, might want, or could want to be installed on the initial load. You're basically saying that your analysis is better than theirs. They're making money off of it and you're doing what?

Another example:

you choose the database group for PostgreSQL, postgres-dev (which is required if you want to install database adapters such as psycopg) is not installed, nor does it apper in the package list.

Dude, I didn't even know what "psycopg" was until I Google'd it. Guess what? I still don't care. I've been using PostgreSQL for years and I've never installed the "-dev" package. If you want to use Python with PostgreSQL, then I'd expect you to be capable of figuring out that you needed it.

I ran your proposal past my decidedly non-geek wife (who's been a "user" of RH/Fedora for 18 months now) - in text, so that no voice inflections would influence her. She said "too confusing - I just want a couple of very basic options." Granted, a survey of one is not very scientific, but it IS indicative.

Us hobbyists are not the target audience - we're just hitching along for the ride.

[panomax]

For the person who "rejected Fedora because he thought the too-inclusive base was too ridiculous" - I wish them well in Debian-land, then.

If you don't want your so-called "bloat," you are quite free to go elsewhere. And, with your attitude, I suggest you do just that.

Who are you Crackers? You sound like that Fedora is your own cheese! Even you are the CEO&CTO&CIO&CFO of Red Hat, you just cannot treat people who make critics in your way: "go away from us". And it is a pity that you cannot appreciate smiley.

My suggestions are for the sole purpose of making Fedora better. I apology for my strong assertment (even with smiley). But it is your attitude that needs to be adjusted. Fedora is not your cheese. Fedora can be critisized. And Fedora is now far from perfect. So Fedora can be improved. I just hope that you can be improved too ^_^

[crackers]

Sorry, bud - you're the one that needs the attitude adjustment. I was quite reasonable in trying to explain somewhat simply what a complex task this kind of thing is, and you come back with your "excuse" line. I'm not against constructive criticism, nor am I against civil discourse, but when presented with the realities of complex project management and business analysis and you blow it off, you're gonna get toasted.

Fedora isn't "my own cheese" (whatever that's supposed to mean), but it's quite plain that I understand a heckuva lot more of what's involved in producing it than you are. And that people who want a "more fine-grained" installation are in the minority of RH's intended audience. If you cannot accept that fact, then you cannot reasonably judge the results.

As to who am I? I'm a professional developer and architect with over 22 years of extensive experience in Unix systems, large-scale enterprise projects, and management thereof. And smiley's aren't an automatic "get out of jail free" when you start with emotionally loaded word choices.

I improve my technological knowledge every day. I would dare say that your half-baked apology is a mere beginning to your improvement.

[panomax]

you blow it off, you're gonna get toasted.

And smiley's aren't an automatic "get out of jail free" when you start with emotionally loaded word choices.

I improve my technological knowledge every day. I would dare say that your half-baked apology is a mere beginning to your improvement.
I think people will easily see who is actually going "emotionally" nowhere. Calm down, 22-year experience guy. Don't you think you are too over-confident? I don't like to cite your over-assertments, which are plenty in all your comments.

Smiley is a sign that the author is making a somewhat exaggerated statement for the purpose of attracting attention, or simply joking. Since you have a lot of posts, it is quite bizarre that you cannot appreciate the smiley. Anyway, a smiley is better than shouting all the way (just like your comments) ^_^ It is a pity that we cannot see any smiley in your comments.

"cheese" comes from a popular book. But you may don't bother to read it, so just forget about it. You seem to understand its metaphor anyway. Could you please explain what you mean by "toasted"? Is this word better than a smiley?

[xsos]

word cheese remain me to my favorite book :) Who moved my cheese :D
Guys come on stop arguing ok :) (no offence)

[crackers]

I think people will easily see who is actually going "emotionally" nowhere. Calm down, 22-year experience guy. Don't you think you are too over-confident?
You asked who I was, so I replied quite matter of factly. That length of experience does give me confidence that I know what I'm talking about. That does not change the fact that

I don't like to cite your over-assertments, which are plenty in all your comments.
You don't seem to get it, do you? Those aren't "over-assertments" - those are statements of reality. Those years of experience have given me the insight into the kinds of issues that are taken into account when decisions, like what constitutes a decent mix of packages and install options, need to be made.

Smiley is a sign that the author is making a somewhat exaggerated statement for the purpose of attracting attention, or simply joking.
Look, I realize now that English is probably not your first language and, to your credit, it's very, very good. When using highly emotionally charged words (such as "lazy" and "excuse"), especially when talking about something that you really have no insight into how difficult it is, much less taking into all the factors that go into those decisions, you can (and, will, obviously) be misconstrued.

Since you have a lot of posts, it is quite bizarre that you cannot appreciate the smiley.
Then you can appreciate this as a learning experience in the English language. :rolleyes:

Anyway, a smiley is better than shouting all the way (just like your comments)
Sorry, time for another lesson:

THIS IS SHOUTING! I do tend to use markup for emphasis - which is not the same.

"cheese" comes from a popular book. But you may don't bother to read it, so just forget about it.
My reading these days is pretty much purely technical, although I do read some science fiction still.

You seem to understand its metaphor anyway. Could you please explain what you mean by "toasted"? Is this word better than a smiley?
Judged the meaning by context. "Toasted" in this vernacular is a reference, of course, to the slightly burned bread favored as a breakfast side dish. It is a metaphor for "being flamed" which is an extremely virulent and often quite insulting posting, somewhat akin to using a verbal blowtorch on someone. "Flaming" originated on Usenet newsgroups (I believe) and was raised to a fine art by some. My personal favorite to use is "microencephalic genius" (you may have to look that one up). It's quite the opposite of a smiley.

[panomax]

Hey, Crackers, you know what? I like you! It's really a delight to debate with a wise man like you, sincerely. So, XSOS, don't worry. Our debate won't become a duel ^_^
Look, I realize now that English is probably not your first language and, to your credit, it's very, very good. When using highly emotionally charged words (such as "lazy" and "excuse"), ...,you can (and, will, obviously) be misconstrued.
Thank you for your compliment. A person speaking fereign language often faces one tough problem that it is hard to appreicate humor and even harder to make a joke, appropriately. Of course, there is also a problem of knowing precisely the "weight", "emotion" and "color" of a word (like "toasted" :-). It exacerbates with English who has just too many words and keeps adding ^_^

I apologize again for not suitably using the words. You can understand, my intention was simply to make a joke in order to draw attention.

My reading these days is pretty much purely technical, although I do read some science fiction still.
That's what I thought. I also have a hinge (is that word right for "guess"? my English teacher ;-) that you have close relationship with RH. And more specifically, with Fedora packaging.

Those aren't "over-assertments"
You did make over-assertments, like me. If you are interested, I can later on discuss with you (other people are all welcome, of course) just those technical assertments, and forget about all those emotional ones (e.g., your "hinges" about me). Ok?

[crackers]

Hey, Crackers, you know what? I like you! It's really a delight to debate with a wise man like you, sincerely.
/me bows - thanks for the "wise" part. (Actually, "wisdom" is just a different word for "I did that in my youth and managed to avoid getting killed.")

Thank you for your compliment. A person speaking fereign language often faces one tough problem that it is hard to appreicate humor and even harder to make a joke, appropriately. Of course, there is also a problem of knowing precisely the "weight", "emotion" and "color" of a word (like "toasted" :-). It exacerbates with English who has just too many words and keeps adding
Good grief yes! Hell, I know "native" speakers of English who understand it worse than you!

I apologize again for not suitably using the words. You can understand, my intention was simply to make a joke in order to draw attention.
I do now ;)

That's what I thought. I also have a hinge (is that word right for "guess"? my English teacher ;-) that you have close relationship with RH. And more specifically, with Fedora packaging.
That's "hunch" (an intuitive conclusion, just based on "feeling"). Hinges are those thingies that hold doors up, or, alternatviely, a "logical connection" ("this outcome hinges on the experiment actually working.") The relation between the two "hinge" definitions/usages is that they're "connectors" - ain't English fun?

And, no, I have no connection at all to RH except through using their stuff and hanging out here. I've just been involved in building some extremely complex systems and analyzing business requirements - one of those situations where related experience comes into play. I also read the on-line and printed computer magazines, paying special attention to what Linux companies are trying to do with their businesses - as well as that "boring" Java stuff... :rolleyes:

You did make over-assertments, like me.
I don't quite think so, but we'll just let it go...

[cavedweller]

panomax is right about being able to break the package selection down a little better. Take a look at SuSE you can choose by package group or selection. The problem is that for the average Joe Dirt user out there they are doing good just to get any distro of linux installed on a system and all working. Try a SuSE install line it up with the things yoiu want installed and see how many conficts you get when yoou click tthe accept button to advance the installation. You will spend the next few minute trying to resolve conflicks to get the distro to except the install. Not the most pleasant experience fore the newbie or casual user. Also consider the fact unless you have spent several years using linux and alot of googling and time in man and faq pages for specific programs for your needs you probably don't know what half of the programs on any set of distro CDs are. So with that in mind crakers is right too. The install process is fine for the average user who will be basically in a group classified as some to no linux knowledge. Here is my take on the whole thing, you are basically using a free OS at your own risk no stings attatched.......Use at you own risk. You are more than likely using it because it is free or do to the fact that not much choice after RH decided to persue their enterprise edition and discontinue support for RH linux. Anyway the Fedora project as far as RedHat is concerned is just another development platform where what they see and like will be incorperated into RH Enterprise. panomax you aren't going to change the way things are in a forum like this if it is eatting you up the way you were carrying on go to work for RedHat and make a change. Ifff you go back to the RH 6 series the package selection isn't a whole lot different than FC2 or 3test 1. That is just how RedHAt has chosing to do it. Crackers it is a public forum where people are incourage to state their opinions you can agree or dissagree or agree to dissagree with them with out all the bantering. It made both of you look inmature. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion if is wasn't for opinions and ideas Linux itself would be setting on a shelf some where as an idea collecting dust. Come on guys keep it civil. Remember that old saying from when you were a kid if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all...........

[Ug]

Good grief yes! Hell, I know "native" speakers of English who understand it worse than you! Watch it. ;)

[crackers]

Watch it. ;)
My dear Gareth, I was certainly excluding you (and myself, of course). I was thinking of the great unwashed out there driving their SUVs and proudly portraying bumper stickers of footballs (soccer here in the US). Y'know, the kind that FOX News caters to.

(Note: for all non-USAians, this was a very large slam at the "generic" middle-class prevalent in the US at this time.)

[crackers]

Crackers it is a public forum where people are incourage to state their opinions you can agree or dissagree or agree to dissagree with them with out all the bantering.
If you had bothered to read the rest of it, you would note that where the apparent animosity stemmed from was that panomax had me completely fooled into thinking he was a native speaker of English, instead of as a "second language." There was a simple language barrier in the use of tonalities and word-usage, that's all.

If someone wishes to discourse at a certain level "above" what would be considered the norm in most world-wide forums, I will "crank up" my language expectations, as well as my word choice/usage automatically. That comes from having two English teachers (equivalent of German language studies in Germany?) as parents and being trained in critical writing and discussion on Usenet (aka the "school of hard knocks").

And while I'm being pedantic, you might want to think about using some "whitespace" in your posts (like separating paragraphs) - a continuous blob of text is less likely to be read, especially by those of us that have poorish eyesight. Bi-focals are not all that fun, believe me...

[hotdog]

For some reason this discussion of package selection during install seems to be operating under the assumption that the current system is mutually exclusive with a more detailed package selection option.

I agree completely that the standard installs (workstation, server, whatever) are exactly what a lot of newbies are looking for, one relatively simple selection and then they get a well rounded system which will probably do most of the things that they want. As has been pointed out, Redhat and the Fedora project have put an awful lot of work over the years into perfecting the combination of packages for these standard installs because they, in common with other linux companies, are commendably trying hard to market Linux to new people.

This is all good, and it should of course continue, but think about what happens a few years later when the newbies who were attracted by the simple, effective installlation have got a bit of experience. Once you have a reasonable idea of what software you want on your system the customisation options currently offered by Fedora no longer meet your needs. I'm no linux expert, I've only been using it for about 3 years and done just 3 installations from scratch (RH9, FC1, FC2), on a couple of machines, but I already know enough about what I want to find the package selector extremely limiting. There are still far too many packages that are in the distribution but not present in the package selector at all, requiring a bunch of package installations and/or removals post-install to get the combination you actually wanted in the first place. The last install I performed I just gave up in frustration and selected 'install all' so I knew I'd get all the 'hidden' packages that I wanted, then pruned the unwanted ones out later using synaptic.

What is needed is another package selection option so that users who are capable of deciding exactly which packages they want can do so during the initial install, instead of having to sort the mess out later. Some sort of tree view which sorts the full (and I mean full, that's the main point of this) list of available packages into broad functional categories, and perhaps to some extent by dependancy heirarchy where there's a group of packages which are add-ons to a single base package. Flag a very minimal set of core packages as unremovable and allow the user to use the standard install package combinations as starting points for the customisation. I'm imagining something like a cross between the xconfig/gconfig kernel configuration tools and synaptic here in terms of UI.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of believing that making things easy for the newbie is the only thing that matters for the development of the Fedora installer (and the UI in general). Obviously it's extremely important but most people will sooner or later want more freedom and controll. One of the reasons I generally dislike Windows + the MS applications suite is the way in which the quest to make a small subset of tasks that a 'typical user' might want to do extremely straighforward has resulted in it being extremely difficult to do anything else. The Fedora install process is currently much the same, however we can fix the situation without making the installation process any more confusing for newcomers with the addition of a more powerful and complete package selection tool accessible through an 'advanced install' option. If it's suitably presented then newbies will just ignore it while experienced users will gain a way to do what they want.

[panomax]

Sorry, I don't have much time these days to follow our discussion. Thanks for the new posts. I feel that my opinion is not ignored by many people anyway.

I appreciate RH and Fedora guys's packaging efforts. But as I mentioned before and confirmed by hotdog et al. , the packaging mechanism can be and should be improved.

Just one small repeated point for instance. Could some experts explain why sendmail is in the core/base for everyone?

[cavedweller]

Point taken crackers ................ coment respectfully retracted