[Grml] removal of "buffer" command? alternatives?

Csillag Tamas cstamas at digitus.itk.ppke.hu
Wed Dec 28 15:24:49 CET 2011

I also have a valid usecase.
(Maybe not one that grml targets.)

I used grml on my thinkpad x40 for a year when its expensive and
special HDD died. It served me quite well.
I also created a remastered version with the newest firefox and ubuntu
repo chromium on it.

What am I saying is that with these tools in question already
available it was (not perfect, but) quite usable.

When I left my pendrive in my friends car who gave me a lift to
debconf11 I tried grml-live to streamline the bootprocess for a brand
new grml and it also worked quite well.

So when I am talking about a tool I am also thinking about grml as an
educational tool, survive sysadmin minimal desktop and
learning/experimenting/development environment.
(Which all can be invalid from another point of view.)

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 01:56:57PM +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:
> * Csillag Tamas [Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:08:29AM +0100]:
> > comgt (180k)
> Thanks, re-added already: http://git.io/rtTeQg

> > libnet-*-perl
> They used to be dependencies of other packages that aren't available
> any longer. Is there any specific package that's considered relevant
> for install and rescue?

ok, I understand.
Maybe this is not that important. I agree.

> > mutt
> > postfix (I was using this for educating mailing basics also good for
> >          testing)
In an friendly evironment it is easy to mail with postfix and mutt.
replying to another mail in this thread:
 If your mail is available on an imap server a stock mutt config is
enought for sending/receiving mails, a bit tweaking in postfix can be
> > runit (520k)
> What's the benefit for the live system?

I find many of its tools valuable. Like setting up (mini) services for
replicating data to other machines on the network (along with ipsvd).
> > rxvt-unicode (this was part or the release from the begining)
> xterm is there and should be enough for install and rescue mission, IMO

rxvt-unicode is quite small, much more flexible and resource friendly
than xterm.

> > What kind of testing is needed to get (most/some of) the tools back
> > on the cd?
> Testing is very important, yes. But it's not just testing but also:
> * taking care of failing builds (we provide daily builds at
>   http://grml.org/daily/ and trigger ISO builds with each git
>   commit)
> * integrating packages into Grml tools (grml-quickconfig,
>   grml-x,...), window manager, providing sane default configs,...

I think most of the tools we are talking about either do not need
configuration or the default is ok.
grml-* tools are ok. For tools already there in 2011.05 maybe not a

> * taking care of bugs (see http://bts.grml.org/grml/) and
>   user support ("why doesn't foo work?")
I think most of the package related bugs is a valid debian bug also.
So it could make sense to forward to the debian bts.

> Thanks for your feedback, we highly appreciate that.

Thanks for your encouragement.

> [1] Thanks for the list. We will review and discuss your software
> selection in further detail, promised.
> regards,
> -mika-

CSILLAG Tamas (cstamas) - http://digitus.itk.ppke.hu/~cstamas

All users suck. mutt is for users who suck less.

More information about the Grml mailing list