On 06/27/2017 02:01 PM, Ben Breard wrote: > Today we ship a “tools” container that’s *really* large, specifically > it’s about 1.5 GB on disk. The feedback I’ve gotten from users is that > it's too large to be useful and they try to avoid it. This of course > makes me sad and I think we should take another look at it. Primarily > this container contains debugging, performance, support utilities > (sosreport), as well as man pages for packages only shipped on Atomic > Host. I think splitting it up along these lines makes sense and will be > intuitive for users. That said, there’s a fine line between some of the > debugging and performance tools, so after looking at the package list, I > think it makes sense to keep those together in the “2.0” tools container. > Here’s what I’m proposing and would love feedback on:
So, given that this is a concern for upstream, I support breaking up the image into logical parts. Additionally, what about basing each image on RHAtomic Image and/or Fedora/CentOS minimal image? That might bring the size down further, altough it's possible that the packages involved would just re-install all of that content anyway. > 1) Drop all packages from rhel-tools that exist only for documentation > purposes. [1] +1 on the idea, I don't understand your paste output though. > 2) Trim down the included packages to this list: [2] > Basically leaves the full capabilities and results in a 476M image which > is a huge step in the right direction. No objections in general. We might want to look at breaking this down further into six contianers: - build-tools (gcc, git, glibc etc) - debug-tools (ltrace, gdb, crash, sos, etc.) - cli-tools (which, bash-completion, tar, etc.) - admin-tools ( parted, passwd, pciutils, xfsprogs, etc.) - net-tools (net-tools, ethtool, tcpdump, etc.) - perf-tools (perf, sysstat, systemtap, etc.) > 3) Create a dedicated image for sosreport utilities. > Includes redhat-support-tool, sos, & strace and depending on which base > image we use it’s either 120M (rhel7-atomic) or 212M (rhel7) > This may only be appealing on the rhel side of the house, but if there’s > value for fedora & centos, it would be trivial to also offer it. sos & strace have appeal, redhat-support-tool less so. For Fedora and CentOS, I would tend to see those as going into the general tools package in (2), but don't have strong objections to it being its own container. > > 4) Optionally create a man pages container. > I really want feedback to see if anyone thinks this is useful. RPM & yum > provide a nodocs capability, but they lack a docs only setting which is > what we need. It works quite well to tar up the man-db for our existing > rhel-tools image and inject it in our minimal base image. This results > in a docs only container that’s ~100M on disk. It would be a slight > hacky process to release something like this, but we could do it. I just I'm in favor of a man pages contianer, but it might violate FLIBS policy. -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS
