+mattdm On Fri, Jun 30, 2017, at 12:35 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > 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.)
Matthew is working on tools modules for Fedora Modularity. It might make sense in many cases for these things to be similar. regards, bex > > > 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 >
