On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Brendan Conoboy <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: > >> Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): >> >>> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, >>>> perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and >>>> run an executable dependent on Fedora ABI” (e.g. kernel version >>>> requirement +glibc+locale data+Python 3 interpreter+…, useful for >>>> building containers), “VM minimal” could be “the minimal contents of a >>>> VM needed to start and run…” (e.g. kernel >>>> implementation+init+container minimal, useful for single-app VM), “CLI >>>> minimal”, … >>>> Mirek >>>> >>> >>> Right, so I don't think minimal is the end goal, I think the OS (not the >>> distribution) is the end goal- minimal is presumably a subset of the OS. >>> >> >> And how we call this "truly minimal concept"? Ring -1? >> >> I would like to have those Rings zero based, where zero is absolute >> minimum to run. Somewhere. Not necessary on bare metal. >> The whole "OS" can be Ring 1. There is still plenty of numbers remaining. >> > > How is this useful? > > Semantics count for something :-) But anyways, I'd say it's fine for ring0 to have a composition of Required & Recommended packages, but a more minimal minded person may opt to go without recommended things to achieve "minimal". (weak dependencies?) I would hope ring0 were small as an effect making it suitable for broader consumption by the variants/spins, but not as a goal in of itself. This seems like the OS being the goal, not minimization. Though keeping things small should not be ignored, it's a nice to have thing. However, If folks get hung-up on semantics I've no problem accommodating their concept of ring0 == minimal. Though it's kinda bikeshed... -- -Jon Disnard
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
