So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora-packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is: == Standard Server Install == * 614 packages * 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools == * 716 packages * 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG: 1) Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently significant to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you see anything else there that might be worth including in this discussion, I'm all ears.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09.02.2015 10:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
Cockpit will be trying reducing its set of dependencies somewhat. For example we'll probably remove the need to depend on accountsservice.
On the other hand, we'll be depending on PCP as well. Currently the PCP packaging drags in tons of unnecessary stuff for basic functionality. We've been trying to work with them and reduce it.
Stef
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora-packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another. v The result I see is: == Standard Server Install ==
- 614 packages
- 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
- 716 packages
- 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
- Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently significant
to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
I did some work when F-21 was in it's final days looking at the package set needed for freeipa-server. I got some improvements but quickly went down a rabbit hole. There's a bunch of improvements still to be made in the java side of things which I suspect could improve both the installed set of pacakges and the DVD size too. I was going to look at this again shortly with F-22+
The bugs still open to date are: avro: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170178 springframework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141469 389-ds-base 389-ds-base https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146030
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 04:31 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora-packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is: == Standard Server Install ==
- 614 packages
- 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
- 716 packages
- 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
- Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently
significant to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you see anything else there that might be worth including in this discussion, I'm all ears.
Since no one disapproved of the above, I went ahead and removed them from the DVD kickstart. We'll see in tomorrow's TC if it saved much space.
On 02/09/2015 03:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora-packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is: == Standard Server Install ==
- 614 packages
- 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
- 716 packages
- 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
- Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently significant
to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you see anything else there that might be worth including in this discussion, I'm all ears.
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
This is a bit late to the party, but I've been having other issues with email that prevented me from replying earlier. However, recently Stephen and I have been discussing some things on IRC that I found contained within the hardware-support comp group[0]. Specifically:
atmel-firmware - wireless adapter support b43-fwcutter - wireless adapter support b43-openfwwf - wireless adapter support ipw2100-firmware - wireless adapter support ipw2200-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl100-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl1000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl105-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl135-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2030-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3160-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3945-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl4965-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5150-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2a-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2b-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6050-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl7260-firmware - wireless adapter support libertas-usb8388-firmware - wireless adapter support usb_modeswitch - 3G / LTE modem support zd1211-firmware - wireless adapter support acpi - limited laptop information reader (no activity since 2010) acpitool - laptop harware support cmospwd - BIOS password recovery (dead project) firmware-addon-dell - for older Dell desktops and workstations gpsd - GPS adapter support gpsd-clients - GPS adapter support gypsy - GPS adapter support i8kutils - for Dell Inspiron and Latitude laptops iscan-firmware - scanner support isight-firmware-tools - scanner support ivtv-firmware - Hauppage TV card support libifp - iRiver MP3 device support multican - Cannon camera support openct - smartcard support opensc - smartcard support pcsc-lite - smartcard support pcsc-lite-ccid - smartcard support
Essentially, all but 2 of the entire comp group are not applicable to servers. The Hardware Support comp group's description reads "This group is a collection of tools for various hardware specific utilities." All of the hardware addressed by these packages are specific to wireless, laptop, desktop or peripheral devices.
In my experience, servers are not equipped with wireless communications. The few times I have seen it even advertised was to support OOB (out of band) management through the ILO interface, not part of the installed operating system.
Servers that utilize specific peripherals should only support the desired peripheral, not the entire random group that pulls in more than is required for a server installation.
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless-tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
--Dan
[0]https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/tree/comps-f22.xml.in [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198844 [2]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198832
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:08:08 -0500 Dan Mossor danofsatx@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless-tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
Sounds good, but I will note that currently comps bugs are assigned to notting@redhat.com, and so I don't think we will see much answer. ;)
We should probibly get that fixed...
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
Sounds reasonable.
kevin
On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 14:34 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:08:08 -0500 Dan Mossor danofsatx@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless-tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
Sounds good, but I will note that currently comps bugs are assigned to notting@redhat.com, and so I don't think we will see much answer. ;)
We should probibly get that fixed...
I've taken over ownership of comps bugs. Remind me about this tomorrow on IRC and I'll make this change, assuming no one chimes in with a good reason not to.
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
Sounds reasonable.
kevin _______________________________________________ server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
On 03/12/2015 10:07 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 14:34 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:08:08 -0500 Dan Mossor danofsatx@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless-tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
Sounds good, but I will note that currently comps bugs are assigned to notting@redhat.com, and so I don't think we will see much answer. ;)
We should probibly get that fixed...
I've taken over ownership of comps bugs. Remind me about this tomorrow on IRC and I'll make this change, assuming no one chimes in with a good reason not to.
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
Sounds reasonable.
kevin _______________________________________________ server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
Either you Stephen or Vasek Pavlin can help with review of comps bugs.
R
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 22:08 -0500, Dan Mossor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 03:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora- packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is: == Standard Server Install ==
- 614 packages
- 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
- 716 packages
- 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
- Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently
significant to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you see anything else there that might be worth including in this discussion, I'm all ears.
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
This is a bit late to the party, but I've been having other issues with email that prevented me from replying earlier. However, recently Stephen and I have been discussing some things on IRC that I found contained within the hardware-support comp group[0]. Specifically:
atmel-firmware - wireless adapter support b43-fwcutter - wireless adapter support b43-openfwwf - wireless adapter support ipw2100-firmware - wireless adapter support ipw2200-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl100-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl1000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl105-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl135-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2030-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3160-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3945-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl4965-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5150-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2a-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2b-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6050-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl7260-firmware - wireless adapter support libertas-usb8388-firmware - wireless adapter support usb_modeswitch - 3G / LTE modem support zd1211-firmware - wireless adapter support acpi - limited laptop information reader (no activity since 2010) acpitool - laptop harware support cmospwd - BIOS password recovery (dead project) firmware-addon-dell - for older Dell desktops and workstations gpsd - GPS adapter support gpsd-clients - GPS adapter support gypsy - GPS adapter support i8kutils - for Dell Inspiron and Latitude laptops iscan-firmware - scanner support isight-firmware-tools - scanner support ivtv-firmware - Hauppage TV card support libifp - iRiver MP3 device support multican - Cannon camera support openct - smartcard support opensc - smartcard support pcsc-lite - smartcard support pcsc-lite-ccid - smartcard support
Essentially, all but 2 of the entire comp group are not applicable to servers. The Hardware Support comp group's description reads "This group is a collection of tools for various hardware specific utilities." All of the hardware addressed by these packages are specific to wireless, laptop, desktop or peripheral devices.
In my experience, servers are not equipped with wireless communications. The few times I have seen it even advertised was to support OOB (out of band) management through the ILO interface, not part of the installed operating system.
Servers that utilize specific peripherals should only support the desired peripheral, not the entire random group that pulls in more than is required for a server installation.
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless- tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
--Dan
[0] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/tree/comps-f22.xml.in%5B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198844%5B2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198832
Find attached a first pass at this hardware support. I left one of the Dell SMBIOS packages on the list, simply because there are some old servers that also share it.
On 03/19/2015 09:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 22:08 -0500, Dan Mossor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 03:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora- packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is: == Standard Server Install ==
- 614 packages
- 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
- 716 packages
- 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
- Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently
significant to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you see anything else there that might be worth including in this discussion, I'm all ears.
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
This is a bit late to the party, but I've been having other issues with email that prevented me from replying earlier. However, recently Stephen and I have been discussing some things on IRC that I found contained within the hardware-support comp group[0]. Specifically:
atmel-firmware - wireless adapter support b43-fwcutter - wireless adapter support b43-openfwwf - wireless adapter support ipw2100-firmware - wireless adapter support ipw2200-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl100-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl1000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl105-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl135-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2030-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3160-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3945-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl4965-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5150-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2a-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2b-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6050-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl7260-firmware - wireless adapter support libertas-usb8388-firmware - wireless adapter support usb_modeswitch - 3G / LTE modem support zd1211-firmware - wireless adapter support acpi - limited laptop information reader (no activity since 2010) acpitool - laptop harware support cmospwd - BIOS password recovery (dead project) firmware-addon-dell - for older Dell desktops and workstations gpsd - GPS adapter support gpsd-clients - GPS adapter support gypsy - GPS adapter support i8kutils - for Dell Inspiron and Latitude laptops iscan-firmware - scanner support isight-firmware-tools - scanner support ivtv-firmware - Hauppage TV card support libifp - iRiver MP3 device support multican - Cannon camera support openct - smartcard support opensc - smartcard support pcsc-lite - smartcard support pcsc-lite-ccid - smartcard support
Essentially, all but 2 of the entire comp group are not applicable to servers. The Hardware Support comp group's description reads "This group is a collection of tools for various hardware specific utilities." All of the hardware addressed by these packages are specific to wireless, laptop, desktop or peripheral devices.
In my experience, servers are not equipped with wireless communications. The few times I have seen it even advertised was to support OOB (out of band) management through the ILO interface, not part of the installed operating system.
Servers that utilize specific peripherals should only support the desired peripheral, not the entire random group that pulls in more than is required for a server installation.
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless- tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
--Dan
[0] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/tree/comps-f22.xml.in%5B1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198844%5B2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198832
Find attached a first pass at this hardware support. I left one of the Dell SMBIOS packages on the list, simply because there are some old servers that also share it.
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
Looks good to me. I'm still researching other useful hardware packages, but I think we've uncovered the most common already.
Dan
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 15:28 -0500, Dan Mossor wrote:
On 03/19/2015 09:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 22:08 -0500, Dan Mossor wrote:
On 02/09/2015 03:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora- packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is: == Standard Server Install ==
- 614 packages
- 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
- 716 packages
- 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of 200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
- Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently
significant to continue this conversation? 2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*? Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you see anything else there that might be worth including in this discussion, I'm all ears.
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
This is a bit late to the party, but I've been having other issues with email that prevented me from replying earlier. However, recently Stephen and I have been discussing some things on IRC that I found contained within the hardware-support comp group[0]. Specifically:
atmel-firmware - wireless adapter support b43-fwcutter - wireless adapter support b43-openfwwf - wireless adapter support ipw2100-firmware - wireless adapter support ipw2200-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl100-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl1000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl105-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl135-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl2030-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3160-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl3945-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl4965-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl5150-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2a-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6000g2b-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl6050-firmware - wireless adapter support iwl7260-firmware - wireless adapter support libertas-usb8388-firmware - wireless adapter support usb_modeswitch - 3G / LTE modem support zd1211-firmware - wireless adapter support acpi - limited laptop information reader (no activity since 2010) acpitool - laptop harware support cmospwd - BIOS password recovery (dead project) firmware-addon-dell - for older Dell desktops and workstations gpsd - GPS adapter support gpsd-clients - GPS adapter support gypsy - GPS adapter support i8kutils - for Dell Inspiron and Latitude laptops iscan-firmware - scanner support isight-firmware-tools - scanner support ivtv-firmware - Hauppage TV card support libifp - iRiver MP3 device support multican - Cannon camera support openct - smartcard support opensc - smartcard support pcsc-lite - smartcard support pcsc-lite-ccid - smartcard support
Essentially, all but 2 of the entire comp group are not applicable to servers. The Hardware Support comp group's description reads "This group is a collection of tools for various hardware specific utilities." All of the hardware addressed by these packages are specific to wireless, laptop, desktop or peripheral devices.
In my experience, servers are not equipped with wireless communications. The few times I have seen it even advertised was to support OOB (out of band) management through the ILO interface, not part of the installed operating system.
Servers that utilize specific peripherals should only support the desired peripheral, not the entire random group that pulls in more than is required for a server installation.
Additionally, I've filed bugs[1,2] to have fprintd-pam and wireless- tools moved from the Standard comps group to the Hardware Support group, since even on workstation installs these two packages are dependent on specific hardware, and shouldn't be included in the Standard comp group.
A possible solution that Stephen and I have worked out is to create a new Server Hardware Support comp group that would include more server-specific tools such as (but not limited to):
smp_utils lm_sensors openhpi
These are the first three that I found in my limited research, I'm sure there are many more that can be justified to be included as part of a Server Hardware Support comp group.
--Dan
[0] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/tree/comps-f22.xml.in%5B1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198844%5B2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198832
Find attached a first pass at this hardware support. I left one of the Dell SMBIOS packages on the list, simply because there are some old servers that also share it.
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
Looks good to me. I'm still researching other useful hardware packages, but I think we've uncovered the most common already.
I should also note that this isn't trimming down the package set on the DVD media; I'm still including the old hardware support as an optional installation. It will reduce the size of the installed system somewhat, though.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:22:24 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
I should also note that this isn't trimming down the package set on the DVD media; I'm still including the old hardware support as an optional installation. It will reduce the size of the installed system somewhat, though.
Looks fine to me. +1
kevin
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 07:30 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:22:24 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
I should also note that this isn't trimming down the package set on the DVD media; I'm still including the old hardware support as an optional installation. It will reduce the size of the installed system somewhat, though.
Looks fine to me. +1
Thanks Dan, Kevin. Pushed to master. It will be in TC4.
On Friday, March 20, 2015, 9:33:55 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 07:30 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:22:24 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
I should also note that this isn't trimming down the package set on the DVD media; I'm still including the old hardware support as an optional installation. It will reduce the size of the installed system somewhat, though.
Looks fine to me. +1
Thanks Dan, Kevin. Pushed to master. It will be in TC4.
May I suggest another candidate for removal?
Since servers do not have wireless, could we also please remove ModemManager from the default server install? This is part of default NetworkManager suite, and used for creating a network connection via LTE modems.
Aside from taking up space, it has persistent issues where it incorrectly misrecognizes devices during initialization, and then failing when that device turns out not to be suitable. There are discussion on the master about converting from a blacklist for known bad devices, to a whitelist for known good devices.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151853 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010538 for open bugs.
There does not seem to be any development activity for this problem, so removing ModemManager helps with both NETINST disk size, and fewer affected systems.
Al
On Thursday, April 2, 2015, 10:34:11 AM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
May I suggest another candidate for removal?
Since servers do not have wireless, could we also please remove ModemManager from the default server install? This is part of default NetworkManager suite, and used for creating a network connection via LTE modems.
Aside from taking up space, it has persistent issues where it incorrectly misrecognizes devices during initialization, and then failing when that device turns out not to be suitable. There are discussion on the master about converting from a blacklist for known bad devices, to a whitelist for known good devices.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151853 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010538 for open bugs.
There does not seem to be any development activity for this problem, so removing ModemManager helps with both NETINST disk size, and fewer affected systems.
A related issue to ModemManager being installed by default is that the service unit is also enabled by default.
Whether it continues to be shipped (or installed) by default or not, I would suggest that from a security point of view to change the service to be disabled by default, and require that it be explicitly enabled.
The same issue was mentioned in an Arch Linux post (see bz).
Al
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 10:34 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2015, 9:33:55 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 07:30 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:22:24 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
I should also note that this isn't trimming down the package set on the DVD media; I'm still including the old hardware support as an optional installation. It will reduce the size of the installed system somewhat, though.
Looks fine to me. +1
Thanks Dan, Kevin. Pushed to master. It will be in TC4.
May I suggest another candidate for removal?
Since servers do not have wireless, could we also please remove ModemManager from the default server install? This is part of default NetworkManager suite, and used for creating a network connection via LTE modems.
Aside from taking up space, it has persistent issues where it incorrectly misrecognizes devices during initialization, and then failing when that device turns out not to be suitable. There are discussion on the master about converting from a blacklist for known bad devices, to a whitelist for known good devices.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151853 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010538 for open bugs.
There does not seem to be any development activity for this problem, so removing ModemManager helps with both NETINST disk size, and fewer affected systems.
Al
Looking at comps.xml, Fedora Server is already not shipping this. It's part of the "Dial-up Networking" package group, which we don't include in the Server install (or on the install DVD ISO).
Those are the best kind of RFEs: the kind that are already done :)
Thanks for the suggestion!
On Thursday, April 2, 2015, 4:44:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 10:34 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
May I suggest another candidate for removal?
Since servers do not have wireless, could we also please remove ModemManager from the default server install? This is part of default NetworkManager suite, and used for creating a network connection via LTE modems.
Looking at comps.xml, Fedora Server is already not shipping this. It's part of the "Dial-up Networking" package group, which we don't include in the Server install (or on the install DVD ISO).
Those are the best kind of RFEs: the kind that are already done :)
It's wonderful how you folks are able to reach back in time and deliver on some of our requests!
Thanks for the suggestion!
Happy to be of service.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Al Dunsmuir -
Dan Mossor -
Kevin Fenzi -
Peter Robinson -
Radek Vokál -
Stef Walter -
Stephen Gallagher