[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Lennart Poettering
<mzerqung at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 15.11.12 00:56, Lennart Poettering (mzerqung at 0pointer.de) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Also, no kernel and no kmod for A, as that is provided by the container
> host.
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

It's been a while since I did anything with containers (LXC) but as I
recall they're pretty much unmanageable without being able to ssh into
them. But yes, I do think the bare-assed minimum viable Fedora is an
LXC guest that one can get a console of some kind on and install
packages into via yum. I'd even be willing to give up vim for nano. I
don't need bash-completion or locate or man pages. ;-)

-- 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb; Computational Journalism Publishers
Workbench: http://znmeb.github.com/Computational-Journalism-Publishers-Workbench/

How the Hell can the lion sleep with all those people singing "A weem
oh way!" at the top of their lungs?