systemd requires HTTP server and serves QR codes

Miloslav Trmač mitr at
Mon Oct 8 23:00:11 UTC 2012

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Lennart Poettering
<mzerqung at> wrote:
> On Mon, 08.10.12 19:37, Miloslav Trmač (mitr at wrote:
>> We support a "minimal installation" target
>> ( ), and this
>> really doesn't seem like something that should be included, for the
>> same reason we don't ship a disabled-by-default ident or httpd in the
>> minimal installation.
> Well, I am all for minimizing the minimal installation set, and can
> applaud attempts to continiusly make data avilable where we stand with
> this and which packages are the worst dependency and size hogs. However,
> afaics the feature you mentioned is kinda dead?

It's not dead: anaconda offers that option, and we aim to look at new
problems at least once per release. Milan Brož has been recently
examining the F18 status.

Looking at bugzllla, Fedora QA uses it (#862238), and you have
personally responded to a minimal install-related bug less then a
month ago (#852828).

> is any current data
> available about how our minimal footprint got worse/better over time in
> both terms of packages and disk space, and which packages are to blame
> for it?
> If the libmicrohttpd dep really is problematic I am happy to split it
> off, but I'd really like some hard data first whether doing this would
> help more than a trivial bit to achieve a smaller minimal installation
> set.

One more network-listening service, let alone an unauthenticated one,
is way "more than a trivial bit" IMHO.

The disk space aspect is by far the most negligible of the four
reasons for a minimal installation I have mentioned earlier today.
(The cost of a megabyte of storage is practically indistinguishable
from zero, and even multiplied by the number of Fedora users it is not
a number that would inspire much work.)  If you are curious about
specific data, I don't have it available; I'll ask around.

More information about the devel mailing list