2015-09-15 15:48 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)redhat.com>:
On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
> Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a):
>
>> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts,
>>> perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and
>>> run an executable dependent on Fedora ABI” (e.g. kernel version
>>> requirement +glibc+locale data+Python 3 interpreter+…, useful for
>>> building containers), “VM minimal” could be “the minimal contents of a
>>> VM needed to start and run…” (e.g. kernel
>>> implementation+init+container minimal, useful for single-app VM), “CLI
>>> minimal”, …
>>> Mirek
>>>
>>
>> Right, so I don't think minimal is the end goal, I think the OS (not the
>> distribution) is the end goal- minimal is presumably a subset of the OS.
>>
>
> And how we call this "truly minimal concept"? Ring -1?
>
> I would like to have those Rings zero based, where zero is absolute
> minimum to run. Somewhere. Not necessary on bare metal.
> The whole "OS" can be Ring 1. There is still plenty of numbers remaining.
>
How is this useful?
Not using negative numbers is not useful, merely simpler.
Having a minimal definition of Fedora is useful
- To be able to say “we don’t care about anything smaller but $this, use
LFS if you want to remove {glibc,libpam}”
- To be able to *expand* the minimal definition: “you can always expect
C# 5 to be available on a Fedora ≥42 system”
- If the truly minimal system (i.e. the one where it does not make sense
to care about a smaller subset) is an ABI, that might be a good place to
make the “OS/application” split (with “binaries needed to boot on bare
metal” in a kind of limbo, neither a part of the ABI nor an installable
application.)
Mirek