2015-09-15 15:48 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy <b...@redhat.com>:
> 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?
>
Not using negative numbers is not useful, merely simpler.
Having a minimal definition of Fedora is useful
- To be able to say “we don’t care about anything smaller but $this, use
LFS if you want to remove {glibc,libpam}”
- To be able to *expand* the minimal definition: “you can always expect
C# 5 to be available on a Fedora ≥42 system”
- If the truly minimal system (i.e. the one where it does not make sense
to care about a smaller subset) is an ABI, that might be a good place to
make the “OS/application” split (with “binaries needed to boot on bare
metal” in a kind of limbo, neither a part of the ABI nor an installable
application.)
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
