John Hinton wrote: > Craig White wrote: > I don't know, I must be choosing something that's throwing the extra > garbage in. And I know, I could write my own KS, but gee, I don't do it > often enough for that and some machines vary, for instance some are > nameservers some are not. A person can spend a lot of time in dependancy > hell trying to get a clean install. If one does select minimal, are you > presented with the custom option during install? Or is minimal only > available at the bottom of the customization screen? Seems like figuring > out what's missing might not be worth the effort to trim the fat? And > maybe I'm crazy, but it seems that installing packages like bind during > the intial install, configures itself more completely off the start > versus installing the package later? > > A great point was made..... Custom should be Custom and should allow > minimal within that scope. Custom doesn't even seem to have nearly the > full package list shown, although yes, it can be argued that some > packages simply must be installed and therefore don't need to be shown. > Then again, maybe one of my 'other' selections is throwing X into the game? > > When CentOS finalizes their 'Server CD', perhaps a copy should be sent > to RedHat!! LOL! > > Again, I know this is not a 'CentOS' issue. And crap... here I go > rambling again! Sorry. Just to throw in my $0.02: we do minimal installs with all our RHEL and CentOS boxes (both 3 and 4) and it really is minimal - no X, no GUI, no KDE/GNOME or Window Managers. If you're building a server then you know what should be on it so you can just do things like 'yum install httpd php mysql' or whatever to get yourself going. Its a very clean way of doing things. -- Tim Edwards