Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thursday 18 January 2007 08:39, S Glasoe wrote: > Could this be the Damn Small openSUSE Linux equivalent at less than ~50MB? > Could this be a Rescue System too? Would it be able to NFS/FTP/HTTP to > openSUSE repositories for the rest of the patterns? I should have read all posts. I would vote for that kind of target that is usable even if it is not expanded. It has disadvantage that we would have to duplicate some packages, but with such small system they can be replaced easily. -- Regards, Rajko. http://en.opensuse.org/Portal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thursday 18 January 2007 02:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a > bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can > do. ... I would set target to a basic system that can run and add more packages in a first instance from CD. Good example, what should be the goal of minmal system, can be a DSL distribution. Similar based on SUSE can be base for further installation if one wants more. As such base would be only about 50-100 MB pieces can be replaced very fast with bigger brother that has compiled in more functionality. This should be the same as Lars Rupp's idea of repackaging. This would add some minimalistic tailored packages to the distribution, that can give us a usefull working and expandable (graphic) environment. Than if user needs more he can add software with full functionality that will pull in regular dependencies. That will grow system very fast, but that can be addressed later. Advantage of this is that users will have small system and chance to bloat their system in direction they really have interest in, and not to be forced to use predefined set that is targeted to all possible usage profiles and demands almost 500 MB for text mode alone. This combined with ability to store selection of software in user defined pattern (that feature is still not back in YaST) and publish it in some common place where others can access them. That will be some kind of voting machine, where the number of downloads will tell what is really in use and give developers idea what has to be improved. To prevent idea that such mini installation is real SUSE it can be used MiniSUSE name instead. Hmm, have I seen that name somewhere? -- Regards, Rajko. http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 23:30 +0100, Richard Bos wrote: > Op donderdag 18 januari 2007 23:06, schreef Pascal Bleser: > > From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few > > interesting proposals: > > - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there) > > - very small without network (if that's of any use at all) > > - very small with network > > very small with network + X for Thin Clients. > Think minimal install plus the ability to add what _you_ need to it. The minimal install doesn't need networking only the ability to add as an extra choice. Ken Schneider - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:03 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Klaus Kaempf wrote: > > As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications. > > > > Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base' > > pattern first. > > Is it for > > 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD ? > > yes. > > > 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest ? > > yes. > > > 3. running a chroot environment ? > > Hmm ... > > > For 1., a minimal YaST or zypper would be essential, I agree. > > Yep. I think it should install something roughly comparable to the > rescue system (plus zypper to install packages and fetch security updates). > > > For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a > > way to install the application you want to run virtualized.) > > Xen: no. You don't use xen guests just to boot to the bash prompt, > usually you want to do something useful with them. So you need some > convinent way to install software. You also want security updates for > them. I don't see how xen guests are that much different than a minimum > system on real hardware. > > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots > which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are > smaller than any package on the distro ;) For building packages you > don't need network, but some other tools such as make and a compiler. > > cheers, > Gerd You need to "slim-down" on two fronts: Disk-space and/or memory There are a number of tiny (live) distro's that whould run happily from a CD and are full featured graphical desktop, with OO.o, firefox, NX/VNC, gaim, Which should be able to have it on a 1GB usb-pendrive !!! While one could use all the mem there is. On the other hand, for XEN, you want to cut down on mem. Good examples for DOM-u's are: -DHCP -DNS -LAMP -Mysql/postgress -temporary compile engine You want to run those images with as little mem as needed At 10.0, i could have those running with as little as 128 MB, with still unclaimed memory. Now, with 10.2, 512 is hardly enough :( Here, disk-space if often not such a problem (SAN/NAS) When thinking of embedded system, then you have to slim down on both... Hans -- pgp-id: 926EBB12 pgp-fingerprint: BE97 1CBF FAC4 236C 4A73 F76E EDFC D032 926E BB12 Registered linux user: 75761 (http://counter.li.org) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:02 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > "Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to > > install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to > > use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? And I > > personally never install a machine nowdays without lvm2 so for me that > > is a essential tool (others might disagree). But the update/install > > parts is the most important. > > You can always add other packages if needed for installation. So, if > there's agreement that lvm is not part of the bare base, you would > have to add it manually... > > Andreas Hi Andreas, Well, LVM would be the wrong example. It should not be a black-or-white situation: Very early on, a hardware detection should be done. And, for instance, only if tv-harware is found, only then the yast modules for confifuring tv should be installed. If you want to configure your basic system with lvm, you'll need lvm right away, but only in that case! I have a feeling that the dependency (for yast-modules) is too rigid: you get it, wether you need (or want) it or not. Refining the threads? The "minimal" system for 10.1 had a "rather large foot print" to put it mildly, and got worse on 10.2. If (and only if) i decide to install any resource-pig, disk-space and mem will be claimed. Not for: "perhaps they want it perhaps later on or so." If I want or need it, i'll selected & install it. I know, that systems tend to grow larger and larger (tnx to M$), but please, try to have a minimal system realy minimal. Hans -- pgp-id: 926EBB12 pgp-fingerprint: BE97 1CBF FAC4 236C 4A73 F76E EDFC D032 926E BB12 Registered linux user: 75761 (http://counter.li.org) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Op donderdag 18 januari 2007 23:06, schreef Pascal Bleser: > From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few > interesting proposals: > - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there) > - very small without network (if that's of any use at all) > - very small with network very small with network + X for Thin Clients. -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:55:54AM +1100, Graham Smith wrote: > What might be needed is a "base package set" plus a number of extra pattern > sets to cover specific jobs like:- > > a) minimal networking > b) package management > c) virtualised systems > > You would then select the "base package set", then whatever patterns you need > to configure a certain system. This may need to placed under an advanced > section of the package management to reduce the problems faced by newbies. This is the thinko! Why should one have to select a "base package set" and "minimal networking" if he just wants "minimal networking" (whatever that would be)? Why shouldn't he just select _only_ "minimal networking" if this is what he wants? Sure, your various use cases might have a common kernel but there is no need to make this explicit, the dependency resolver is doing that for you. There is absolutely no point in presenting something without a meaning to the user. Honestly, most people in this thread try to solve a problem that is just not existing. That's like people in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trying to find the answer without knowing the question at all. I recommend that people interested in finding a solution for the scenario Andreas was talking about, write this in this thread. People that want to talk about chroot/xen/whatever just first think about what they actually want and if they found that then start a _new_ discussion because posting this in this thread is off-topic and just confusing the discussion. And describe your use case in a _detailed_ way because the less detailed your use case is the more troll-like will be the resulting discussion. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpUbktNfpU9p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Pascal Bleser wrote: As Robert wrote, I think we should first define what kind of "minimal package sets" we want/need. think by function: write the use, then the result - - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there) I'm not very aware of that, however I have a use for a ssh login in a chroot, with mail capability and ssh outgoing - that is to be able to open a chroot jail on my own server to allow the users of my admin course (users I don't know) to access a ssh server - - very small without network (if that's of any use at all) minimal install from cd/dvd. allow very fast install and minimal HW test. needs yast or any mean to continue the install further - - very small with network same as above, but for net install. starting point can be any filesystem grub can see and grub itself come from any bootable device when cd/dvd is not available jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Votez pour nous, merci - vote for us, thanks :-) http://musique.sfrjeunestalents.fr/artiste/Magic-Alliance/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Schiele wrote: [...] > So what people actually mean when they say "minimal package set" is actually > either a "what-_I_-want-at-least-on-my-system package set" or a > "what-is-needed-for-a-specific-job pattern set". In the first case you will > never reach consesus by obvious reasons. In the second case you don't need > _the_ "minimal package set" but you need _a_ "minimal package set" for a > specific job. > > So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss about a > minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a new system or a > pattern that should be installed for doing this or that but not mix up > everything and call this undefined thing "minimal pattern set". That's pretty much was I was about to post on the topic. I think the discussion is not going anywhere because everyone has a different understanding of "minimal package set". As Robert wrote, I think we should first define what kind of "minimal package sets" we want/need. - From the discussion up to this point, there were already a few interesting proposals: - - chroot (that's probably the most minimalistic, not even RPM in there) - - very small without network (if that's of any use at all) - - very small with network etc... cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFFr+9zr3NMWliFcXcRAt3FAJd59zad/ydA/rJdnWtYh0XVyFZ8AJ9hFq8b 5ae5zMlQo5dR4gbUHOkOLw== =r560 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:23:41PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-18-07 15:54]: > [...] > > So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss > > about a minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a > > new system or a pattern that should be installed for doing this or > > that but not mix up everything and call this undefined thing "minimal > > pattern set". > > > So, SOMEONE needs to take the lead and SET parameters for *minimal* and > let everybody add to that to achieve what they desire as *minimal*. > > You are correct that a consensus will not be reached. > > 1. Set a minimum minimal As I already said this is the empty set because for _every_ package you name I can find a use case where this one is not needed. I don't get it why some people insist on having a "generic minimum set" without having a concrete use case. Nobody actually needs this. We have implemented a package management system for a specific project and I can tell you that we never defined such a "generic minimum set" and it still works --- believe it or not. Just consider every request for such a "generic minimum set" as a troll posting because it just leads to hundreds of really stupid discussion mails. > 2. Define several small adds or enhancements for minimal Yes, do _that_ when you have a _concrete_ use case but _not_ when you are bored and just want to write something on the list. This is what Andreas did initially correct in this thread by specifying what he wants to have and many others did wrong in this thread by mixing in various other use cases that came to their mind but were completely unrelated to the initial question. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgpncswxxKIFc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Friday 19 January 2007 07:53, Robert Schiele wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > > * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]: > > > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots > > > which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are > > > smaller than any package on the distro ;) For building packages you > > > don't need network, but some other tools such as make and a compiler. > > > > Exactly. > > But even for these environments, you probably need a minimal set > > of packages like glibc, bash, etc. The question is, shouldn't this > > minimal set be the 'very minimal base' (:-)) pattern ? > > This is exactly the reason why you will never reach consensus about _the_ > "minimal package set" in my opinion. Actually the _real_ "minimal package > set" is having no package at all because having no package at all resolves > all dependencies of the packages and there is no package left someone might > claim to be unneeded. And this is the _only_ real "minimal package set" > that is minimal from a mathematical point of view. > > So what people actually mean when they say "minimal package set" is > actually either a "what-_I_-want-at-least-on-my-system package set" or a > "what-is-needed-for-a-specific-job pattern set". In the first case you > will never reach consesus by obvious reasons. In the second case you don't > need _the_ "minimal package set" but you need _a_ "minimal package set" for > a specific job. > What might be needed is a "base package set" plus a number of extra pattern sets to cover specific jobs like:- a) minimal networking b) package management c) virtualised systems You would then select the "base package set", then whatever patterns you need to configure a certain system. This may need to placed under an advanced section of the package management to reduce the problems faced by newbies. With opensuse 10.2 it is very messy trying to configure a system for a specific need. For instance why when removing firefox does Yast want to remove the whole X11 set of packages. I have came across a large number of these dependancy problems when setting up different systems and this can take a large amount of time to resolve. There is also major problems using Yast to set up a software set for autoinstallation. Yast takes the package set of the server it is installed on including all the extra repositories installed on that system e.g packman It is nearly impossible to determine what packages belong to the opensuse ISO package set and all the external packages. -- Regards, Graham Smith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-18-07 15:54]: [...] > So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss > about a minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a > new system or a pattern that should be installed for doing this or > that but not mix up everything and call this undefined thing "minimal > pattern set". So, SOMEONE needs to take the lead and SET parameters for *minimal* and let everybody add to that to achieve what they desire as *minimal*. You are correct that a consensus will not be reached. 1. Set a minimum minimal 2. Define several small adds or enhancements for minimal 3. Publish and allow everyone to achieve their own status -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]: > > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots > > which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are > > smaller than any package on the distro ;) For building packages you > > don't need network, but some other tools such as make and a compiler. > > Exactly. > But even for these environments, you probably need a minimal set > of packages like glibc, bash, etc. The question is, shouldn't this > minimal set be the 'very minimal base' (:-)) pattern ? This is exactly the reason why you will never reach consensus about _the_ "minimal package set" in my opinion. Actually the _real_ "minimal package set" is having no package at all because having no package at all resolves all dependencies of the packages and there is no package left someone might claim to be unneeded. And this is the _only_ real "minimal package set" that is minimal from a mathematical point of view. So what people actually mean when they say "minimal package set" is actually either a "what-_I_-want-at-least-on-my-system package set" or a "what-is-needed-for-a-specific-job pattern set". In the first case you will never reach consesus by obvious reasons. In the second case you don't need _the_ "minimal package set" but you need _a_ "minimal package set" for a specific job. So if this discussion should become constructive you should discuss about a minimal pattern that should be installed when installing a new system or a pattern that should be installed for doing this or that but not mix up everything and call this undefined thing "minimal pattern set". Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." pgps9qYgZh7SG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse-factory] 'incomplete pattern' should be ok
* Martin Schlander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 17. 2007 09:23]: > > I installed from DVD5, when I wanted to remove RealPlayer I got a lot of > conflicts with the other non-oss stuff, I eventually found out that I could > solve the problem by removing the non-oss pattern. To me it makes absolutely > no sense that RealPlayer should require Java. And I'm thinking maybe the > costs of patterns outweigh the benefits. >From your description, it looks as if the non-oss pattern has a hard requirement to RealPlayer. It should be a weak dependency instead. I'd consider this a bug. > > The other day I wanted to mess with zeroconf, so I tried installing > avahi-msdnresponder-stuff, since the zeroconf-kio-slave said no daemon was > running I wanted to remove it again and try using the "real" mdnsresponder, > to see if it worked better. This was impossible however, since all of a > sudden removing avahi would mean removing kdebase-ksysguard and loads of > other stuff with absolutely no connection with avahi. Apparently avahi is not > in any pattern, so it most be some avahi-deps that are tied into something. Please file a bug report for such things. > > I thought it might be libzypp doing some strange resolving, but smart also > wants to remove 25-30 packages in order to remove avahi. Many of them > essential stuff. ;-} smart doesn't know anything about pattern. So this is certainly an example of 'package dependency hell' we'd like to address in the future. > > For now I've just let it be. But I can think of no other solution than a) > removing all patterns or b) ignoring all the conflicts. Neither is > particularly satisfying. > > I wonder if the patterns could be made to only have effect when being > installed, but with no (pattern) requirements being honoured when removing > individual packages - guess it would be tricky. > > Or how about a disable-patterns-switch? I do not know either but I'm highly interested in any suggestions. > > I'm also hearing n00bs complaining about dependency conflcts in forums, of > course their error descriptions aren't very good, but it smells like patterns > causing problems. A lot of current pattern and package dependencies are certainly too strong. The question is, where to start to make them weaker without risking an 'unusable' system. Of course, the definition of 'unusable' is a different one for everybody ... Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 17:14]: > > Inside. Outside implies downtime. Inside has the risk of breaking your system if an update is broken. Outside does not necessarily mean a long downtime. Imagine the following. - create a copy of the virtual image - loopback mount it - apply updates - run this patched image in a controlled environment to verify the correctness of the update. - take the original image down - boot the updated image It still has a downtime larger than a simple application restart. > Or do you install security updates > on real hardware by booting the rescue system, mounting disk and > installing them? Basically yes, for virtual images. Enterprise customers are asking for this capability as described above. > > > But even for these environments, you probably need a minimal set > > of packages like glibc, bash, etc. The question is, shouldn't this > > minimal set be the 'very minimal base' (:-)) pattern ? > > Hmm, maybe we need two then? One "boot to bash prompt" and one > "rescue-system like, with network and zypper"? Yes. The latter one could simply depend on the first one. Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]: >> So you need some convinent way to install software. You also want security >> updates for >> them. I don't see how xen guests are that much different than a minimum >> system on real hardware. > > Depends on how you manage your xen guests. From the 'inside' (having network > and e.g. online-update running inside the guest) or the 'outside' (loopback > mounting the image and install selected updates) ? Inside. Outside implies downtime. Or do you install security updates on real hardware by booting the rescue system, mounting disk and installing them? > But even for these environments, you probably need a minimal set > of packages like glibc, bash, etc. The question is, shouldn't this > minimal set be the 'very minimal base' (:-)) pattern ? Hmm, maybe we need two then? One "boot to bash prompt" and one "rescue-system like, with network and zypper"? cheers, Gerd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 16:03]: > Klaus Kaempf wrote: > > > For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a > > way to install the application you want to run virtualized.) > > Xen: no. You don't use xen guests just to boot to the bash prompt, > usually you want to do something useful with them. Agreed. But "something useful" can mean a lot of things ;-) > So you need some convinent way to install software. You also want security > updates for > them. I don't see how xen guests are that much different than a minimum > system on real hardware. Depends on how you manage your xen guests. From the 'inside' (having network and e.g. online-update running inside the guest) or the 'outside' (loopback mounting the image and install selected updates) ? In the end, its the (usual) decision between security and convenience. For security, you only want those packages installed needed by your application. Otoh, having software management utilities available can be very convenient. > > chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots > which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are > smaller than any package on the distro ;) For building packages you > don't need network, but some other tools such as make and a compiler. Exactly. But even for these environments, you probably need a minimal set of packages like glibc, bash, etc. The question is, shouldn't this minimal set be the 'very minimal base' (:-)) pattern ? Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Klaus Kaempf wrote: > As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications. > > Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base' > pattern first. > Is it for > 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD ? yes. > 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest ? yes. > 3. running a chroot environment ? Hmm ... > For 1., a minimal YaST or zypper would be essential, I agree. Yep. I think it should install something roughly comparable to the rescue system (plus zypper to install packages and fetch security updates). > For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a > way to install the application you want to run virtualized.) Xen: no. You don't use xen guests just to boot to the bash prompt, usually you want to do something useful with them. So you need some convinent way to install software. You also want security updates for them. I don't see how xen guests are that much different than a minimum system on real hardware. chroot: very much depends on what you plan to do with it. The chroots which are created for running daemons in there (named, dhcpd, ...) are smaller than any package on the distro ;) For building packages you don't need network, but some other tools such as make and a compiler. cheers, Gerd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thursday 18 January 2007 02:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a > bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can > do. > > I thought about the following: > * make the existing base system pattern really minimal > * add another conveninience pattern that has all the extra stuff we > currently have in the base system - and require this for all other > patterns. > > For a really minimal base system we have to define what we need first. > Andreas Great ideas and yes I think it needs to be done. I bet the first issues to resolve will be package selection and hardware support so I then think what is the size of the media this will reside on? Could this base pattern also be a 'single-CD' install? Should it be a stand alone bootable ISO file? If so then what should the target media size be for the base or bare minimum pattern? 32MB to 1GB USB stick or 700MB CD, 4G DVD, 9GB DVD? Could this be the Damn Small openSUSE Linux equivalent at less than ~50MB? Could this be a Rescue System too? Would it be able to NFS/FTP/HTTP to openSUSE repositories for the rest of the patterns? Could this base pattern include enough to be the base for Live CD/DVD/USBstick openSUSE? Stan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Jonathon M. Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 15:21]: > I would have to throw in on the side of networking being part of base, > although I realize the enlargement that would create due to the amount > of drivers required. Drivers is another good point. Would the 'minimal base' include a kernel ? If 'minimal base' is targeted to chroot environments, no. Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 09:52 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > A good idea, > > I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for > installing more packages. > In my opinion it is not neccessary to have a working network for a really > small system. > A small system running DNS/DHCP would need networking. Ken Schneider - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:56]: >> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to >> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to >> use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? > > As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications. > > Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base' > pattern first. > Is it for > 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD ? > 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest ? > 3. running a chroot environment ? > > For 1., a minimal YaST or zypper would be essential, I agree. installed size of libzypp + zypper is cca 7.2 MB > > For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a > way to install the application you want to run virtualized.) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] SMP
2007/1/18, Per Jessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Randall R Schulz wrote: > In a HyperThreading CPU not all of the CPU hardware is present twice, > hence there is less available parallelism. There is actually zero real concurrency/parallelism - there is only one execution unit. Look up SMT (simultaneous multihreading) for a more detailed explanation. Whay You know about AMD's antihyperthreading? (Technology makes multicore act as one core) http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=6013 Regards - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wolfgang Rosenauer schreef: > Klaus Kaempf wrote: >> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]: >>> A good idea, >>> >>> I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for >>> installing more packages. >> If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should include RPM >> at most >> but not YaST. >> YaST is a convenience application for systems management and should be >> optional. >> >> >>> In my opinion it is not neccessary to have a working network for a really >>> small system. >> I agree. Thinking of virtualized systems, sharing filesystems is sufficient. > > Really. For what to have a virtualized system if you can't really > connect to it? IMHO a system w/o network is not of use nowadays. And how > do you share filesystems with virtual systems in the real world? > > Wolfgang > - I agree to this, no working network connection is out of the question for me...it would be a setback in these days. (how to get to the files without a network connection?) It is essential, to get to the source, as soon as the box can be commanded... > > - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. So, if you want to make any changes? OS: Linux 2.6.18.2-34-default x86_64 Huidige gebruiker: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systeem: openSUSE 10.2 (X86-64) KDE: 3.5.5 "release 45" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFr0iyX5/X5X6LpDgRAu+PAKDO8UMvVL8HvYmpJWG0fcHQuLrLrgCdHLA6 XuCfJN/358OuiC7k67sws0A= =jx6Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Am Do 18.01.2007 10:27 schrieb Ludwig Nussel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, since yast asks for the root password in 2nd stage a system > without yast would be somewhat useless as you couldn't even log in > after installation. Thats why I wrote: "deinstall after installation". So we can walk trough the complete second stage of installation and afterwards we've perhaps no YaST at all. So perhaps we need: - smaller dependencies between the YaST modules - a new "YaST2-installation" which contains all relevant parts (impossible imho) - a new step for deinstallation unneeded modules/rpms after installation is finished New items for AJs list: - Look for packages with more than x MB (lets start with 10MB) size and see if we can downsize them by repackaging. - Let the "base" pattern become very small and minimalistic. I agree with Klaus that we perhaps need something like a bash - but if you say that, there will probably be someone saying "I need that fing 20MB editor named vi - or this is no minimal system to live with". So why not put only stuff like kernel, glibc and ... in the base pattern a system can not start with. Extend these base pattern with additional patterns like "System administration (YaST)", usefull system tools (vi, joe, ifconfig, ...). => This should result in a very small base pattern (target 1) => We can discuss about the additional (system) patterns for the base system in seperate threats. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On 1/18/07, Klaus Kaempf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:56]: > > Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to > install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to > use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications. Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base' pattern first. Is it for 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD ? 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest ? 3. running a chroot environment ? For 1., a minimal YaST or zypper would be essential, I agree. For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a way to install the application you want to run virtualized.) Klaus I see your point. And I agree. I just see a problem that it could lead to a lot of "servers" unmaintained updatewise. And that could be a potential problem. We should also think about the people not active in the opensuse community but still using it. I believe that they would choose base system to install thinking "I can add the rest of the stuff later." When we then tell them to download 10 (number taken from the air) rpm by hand and move to the server and then install with rpm they would say it sucks. But on the other side, you are correct. If would like to see opensuse used in embeded environments that puts it in another light. Now I even confused myself to the point that I'm not sure anymore. Warm Regards, Claes Backstrom
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Ludwig Nussel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:27]: > Klaus Kaempf wrote: > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]: > > > > > > I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for > > > installing more packages. > > > > If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should > > include RPM at most but not YaST. YaST is a convenience > > application for systems management and should be optional. > > Well, since yast asks for the root password in 2nd stage a system > without yast would be somewhat useless as you couldn't even log in > after installation. Right, _if_ we talk about a base system to be installed via YaST from CD/DVD. For a virtualized image or a chroot (e.g. a build system), you don't need YaST. Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Wolfgang Rosenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:27]: > Klaus Kaempf wrote: > > > > I agree. Thinking of virtualized systems, sharing filesystems is sufficient. > > Really. For what to have a virtualized system if you can't really > connect to it? To do data processing for example, i.e. reporting and data analysis. Such an application could read from one (mounted) database and write its output to a file. > IMHO a system w/o network is not of use nowadays. I agree that networking is highly useful. The question is, do we want to make networking mandatory (!) for the 'base' system. I do not think so. Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]: > > > > I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for > > installing more packages. > > If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should > include RPM at most but not YaST. YaST is a convenience > application for systems management and should be optional. Well, since yast asks for the root password in 2nd stage a system without yast would be somewhat useless as you couldn't even log in after installation. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Development V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]: >> A good idea, >> >> I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for >> installing more packages. > > If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should include RPM > at most > but not YaST. > YaST is a convenience application for systems management and should be > optional. > > >> In my opinion it is not neccessary to have a working network for a really >> small system. > > I agree. Thinking of virtualized systems, sharing filesystems is sufficient. Really. For what to have a virtualized system if you can't really connect to it? IMHO a system w/o network is not of use nowadays. And how do you share filesystems with virtual systems in the real world? Wolfgang - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 10:00]: > Lars Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas? > > > > Perhaps we can discuss if we need an additional option "Remove after > > installation" in the YaST2-Packagemanager - for Example: Some > > YaST2-Modules can be deleted, when the installation is finished... > > I forgot to add: We need some Yast modules for installation: > * YaST modules for 2nd part of installation I tried to deselect YaST modules to achieve this. The current YaST dependencies make it almost impossible. :-( Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* Claes Bäckström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:56]: > > Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to > install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to > use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? As written before, I'd see such tools as convenience applications. Maybe we should define the purpose and application of such a 'base' pattern first. Is it for 1. installing a really minimal but somewhat usable system via CD/DVD ? 2. running a (Xen) virtual guest ? 3. running a chroot environment ? For 1., a minimal YaST or zypper would be essential, I agree. For 2. or 3. a bash prompt would probably be sufficient (plus a way to install the application you want to run virtualized.) Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Jan 18. 2007 09:52]: > > A good idea, > > I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for > installing more packages. If we are talking about a _really_ small base system, it should include RPM at most but not YaST. YaST is a convenience application for systems management and should be optional. > In my opinion it is not neccessary to have a working network for a really > small system. I agree. Thinking of virtualized systems, sharing filesystems is sufficient. Klaus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On 1/18/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to
> install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to
> use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? And I
> personally never install a machine nowdays without lvm2 so for me that
> is a essential tool (others might disagree). But the update/install
> parts is the most important.
You can always add other packages if needed for installation. So, if
there's agreement that lvm is not part of the bare base, you would
have to add it manually...
Andreas
Yes so I don't think that is so very important. Even better would be
if the installation would detect that I have configured lvm or evms so
it would autoadd the tools for it, and if we do it like that is should
NOT be in the pattern.
Warm Regards,
Claes Backstrom
N�r��y隊Z)z{.���r�+�맲��r��z�^�ˬz����uح��ڕ�&��ݱ隊Z)z{.���r�+��^��)z{.�
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
"Claes Bäckström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to > install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to > use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? And I > personally never install a machine nowdays without lvm2 so for me that > is a essential tool (others might disagree). But the update/install > parts is the most important. You can always add other packages if needed for installation. So, if there's agreement that lvm is not part of the bare base, you would have to add it manually... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgpeSSqIxWBvK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Lars Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas? > > Perhaps we can discuss if we need an additional option "Remove after > installation" in the YaST2-Packagemanager - for Example: Some > YaST2-Modules can be deleted, when the installation is finished... I forgot to add: We need some Yast modules for installation: * YaST modules for 2nd part of installation Yes, something to think about, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgp2Bv7QUtKjX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
Am Do 18.01.2007 09:39 schrieb Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas? Perhaps we can discuss if we need an additional option "Remove after installation" in the YaST2-Packagemanager - for Example: Some YaST2-Modules can be deleted, when the installation is finished... Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
On 1/18/07, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can do. I thought about the following: * make the existing base system pattern really minimal * add another conveninience pattern that has all the extra stuff we currently have in the base system - and require this for all other patterns. For a really minimal base system we have to define what we need first. Here's a proposal for a "Definition Base System": Multiuser system with: * Local login (via /etc/passwd) * network setup via ethernet * default filesystems used (ext3) directly (without evms, lvm, mdraid etc) * no services running by default My questions for discussion are especially the following: * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas? * Is the "base system definition" ok? What's missing - or is it still too much or should made clearer? * How do I name the new pattern with all the extra stuff? Note this is in some ways a followup to bug #228815, I think this sounds like a great idea. I was only yesterday thinking of this exact thing. Nice to know that I'm in such a sync with other great minds. Something I would like to see in the "base" pattern is tools to install new software and with that I don't only mean rpm but a way to use a network source for installation and update perhaps zypper? And I personally never install a machine nowdays without lvm2 so for me that is a essential tool (others might disagree). But the update/install parts is the most important. Warm Regards, Claes Backstrom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Januar 2007 09:39 > An: opensuse-factory > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: [opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller > > > I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a > bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can do. > > I thought about the following: > * make the existing base system pattern really minimal > * add another conveninience pattern that has all the extra stuff we > currently have in the base system - and require this for all other > patterns. > > For a really minimal base system we have to define what we need first. > > Here's a proposal for a "Definition Base System": > Multiuser system with: > * Local login (via /etc/passwd) > * network setup via ethernet > * default filesystems used (ext3) directly (without evms, lvm, > mdraid etc) > * no services running by default > > My questions for discussion are especially the following: A good idea, I think it would be enough to have a login and a !!small!! yast for installing more packages. In my opinion it is not neccessary to have a working network for a really small system. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-factory] Making the basesystem smaller
I heard from several sides that the base system of openSUSE 10.2 is a bit large - and agree and would like to discuss with you what we can do. I thought about the following: * make the existing base system pattern really minimal * add another conveninience pattern that has all the extra stuff we currently have in the base system - and require this for all other patterns. For a really minimal base system we have to define what we need first. Here's a proposal for a "Definition Base System": Multiuser system with: * Local login (via /etc/passwd) * network setup via ethernet * default filesystems used (ext3) directly (without evms, lvm, mdraid etc) * no services running by default My questions for discussion are especially the following: * What do you think of this? Do you have better ideas? * Is the "base system definition" ok? What's missing - or is it still too much or should made clearer? * How do I name the new pattern with all the extra stuff? Note this is in some ways a followup to bug #228815, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 pgp9SPS2FK8pI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse-factory] SMP
Randall R Schulz wrote: > In a HyperThreading CPU not all of the CPU hardware is present twice, > hence there is less available parallelism. There is actually zero real concurrency/parallelism - there is only one execution unit. Look up SMT (simultaneous multihreading) for a more detailed explanation. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- ENIDAN Technologies GmbH - managed email-security. Is _your_ business under attack? http://www.spamchek.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-factory] SMP
Edward Dunagin wrote: > hey fellows and gals, this confuses me to no end. > > here is my cat /proc/info > > processor : 0 [snip] > physical id : 0 > core id : 0 > cpu cores : 1 > > processor : 1 [snip] > physical id : 0 > core id : 0 > cpu cores : 1 > It sure looks like I have 2 processors. That is exactly right - it LOOKS like you've got two, but there's really just the one. It's a P4 with hyperthreading. It's able to pretend do some concurrent execution by using cycles otherwise wasted e.g. by cache misses. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - managed email-security. Starting at SFr1/month/user. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
