Hi!
Just something for the grml developers to think about: How about splitting grml into supported and unsupported flavors?
The supported flavor would be the current one (grml-medium). This would let the grml developers focus on the grml core and lift them from the burden of testing all the packages (the main reason for dropping former grml-full, right?).
The unsupported flavor would be the former 700MB grml-full, built from grml-live for convenient download but without further time-consuming testing by the grml devel team, i.e. grml-medium with lots of subsequent apt-get installs.
Bug reports would be only accepted for supported grml, like OpenBSD that only accepts reports for GENERIC kernels or Linux for untainted.
Yes, I know there is grml-live, but if people would just silently build their ISOs themselves instead of looking for downloads, the mailing-lists would have been quiet after the 2011.12 release, right?
Now, what I'm certainly missing here is the amount of work required for the package selection of the larger grml flavors.
I think that the supported/unsupported flavor approach would satisfy both the developers (less package testing, more time to work on grml internals) and the users (have a well-tested grml core as well as a rich package set by default).
Regards, Walter