On 16/12/2018 12:28, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 07:08:10AM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>
> You see: in just two emails we have come from a *minimal* base
> installation (a shell with a kernel, a bootloader, and a working
> dpkg/apt) to a fully-functioning network server (an ssh server with
> configurable keys!) and a working X config. Another three emails and
> we get requests for automatic partitioning, automagic disk encryption,
> remote shell during install, choice between different mirror
> configurations, localisation, choice of meta-packages for typical
> use-cases and.....
>
> ...and we end up with something of the same complexity of the current
> debian-installer.
>
> We keep saying we crave for minimalism. But the same concept of
> *minimalism* has become quite bloated in the last 20 years :)
>

That is my issue, focus has been lost on what an 'Installer' should do.
A great deal is performed at install time that falls into the domain of
package manager'. Standard tools such as dpkg, apt-get, synaptec,
dpkg-reconfigure are not leveraged by the installee as they should be.

Also restraints fallaciously imposed toward functionality or security
(e.g. GUI on a server, or forced creation of a User which must have a
password) just get in the way. Without fully knowing the system *and*
the end purpose rational judgement calls cannot be made (how many
installers on a Raspberry Pi actually use the HWRNG, the quality of
which exceeds all but the most expensive of random number devices to
generate keys for SSH and the like).

For convenience there is no reason additional but *separate* utilities
could not be made available. Do not omit the simplicity and potential of
a command such as

apt-get install -y @group

The base installer should be the lowest common denominator of all
installs ranging from a Non-GUI Non-Networked Flash only Embedded Device
to a Cloud Server Node.