Moving w3m out of standard

Serge van Ginderachter serge at
Fri Jun 20 10:50:32 UTC 2008

"Soren Hansen" <soren at> wrote:

> This seems to be a common theme when it comes to discussing what goes
> on
> servers by default and what doesn't.
>   "We shouldn't put foo on servers by default, because not everyone
>   needs it, and it's easily apt-get installable if you need it."
> Well, that might be true, but consider the converse:
>   "Some people need it, and it's easily apt-get removable if you
> don't."
> which is also true.
> With the advent of the server seed, I think the time is ripe for us
> to
> be slightly (not much, but just a tiny bit) more promiscuous in our
> choice of what gets installed by default.

What about keeping having the option, to be choosen with some virtual package, just like one has with the desktop options?

- ubuntu-server-base
- ubuntu-server-full

> We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only
> install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school
> admins
> can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though.

Removing the "bloat" would ba as simple as removing the virtual package.
And having the option at installtime to not deploy ubuntu-server-full

Of course, one should be carefull to not extermely bloat ubuntu-server-full :)

But I agree that stuff like smartmontools might be a good candidate for ubuntu-server-full.
Maybe a partial parameter to what should be provided could also be those packages which are manageable through UCSA 


 Serge van Ginderachter 

 Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie  

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list