On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)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