[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 12.11.12 11:28, Matthew Miller (mattdm at fedoraproject.org) wrote:

> Okay, cool -- there's a lot of enthusiasm for a SIG for the core package
> set.
> 
> So, first up on the SIG goals: clarifying our target.
> 
> It's been suggested before that there's so many possibilities that this is
> useless, but the point here is to *pick* a reasonable choice as a group and
> to work with that (even if we can't get complete consensus). Then, later,
> when someone says "but minimal could mean so many differen things!" we
> simply say "sure, but *this* is what we mean".
> 
> I see three basic options for the target:
> 
>  A) kernel + init system and we're done
>  B) "boot to yum (with network)": a text-mode bootstrap environment on which
>     other things can be added by hand (or by kickstart)
>  C) a traditional Unix command line environment with the expected basic
>     tools available
> 
> To me, 'C' is too wide for two reasons. First, it's too open for continual
> debate, because different people might expect different tools. Second, it's
> not necessarily the right base for the rest of the distribution, because
> many use cases might not really need that traditional Unix environment.
> 
> I think 'A' is interesting and useful, but I don't think it should be our
> target, because it's not *useful enough*. We may want to eventually define a
> sub-group which covers just this tiny base (maybe with busybox?), but I
> think that's a different project.
> 
> So that leaves me at *mostly B*, although I have some sympathy to the idea
> that we should include a few other things like a man page reader, since
> we're installing man pages, and a way to deliver e-mail to root, since we're
> installing things that send such mail. And I think the core environment
> should include ssh, but I'm open to the idea that even that should be an
> add-on.
> 
> What do you think?

I think a good way to approach this is by looking for the interesting
usecases for a minimal installation:

A) Containers
B) VMs
C) Bare-Metal Servers
D) Paranoid people (not relevant)
E) Embedded (out of focus for Fedora)
... anything else?

I list A and B as separate items, since they have different needs. For
A you don't want SSH or bootloader (the bootloader is not necessary, as
the container manager will directly invoke init, and you can login via
local console). For B you you need a bootloader and probably SSH.

I think it would make sense to focus on the intersection of installation
set for these usecases. And hence:

No SSH. No Boot loader. And definitely not Sendmail. 

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.