2015-09-15 15:48 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy <blc@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