So after some discussion, it seems that what we have is not entirely unreasonable. There would/could be some gain (possbly on the order of 70-80M in /lib/modules). That includes removal of wireless modules, graphics drivers, sound, and some other misc drivers. I'll attach my revised list.
So there is definitely some space to gain from a -server image, however that comes at a development and recurring maintenance cost. Below the 2 images are "cloud" and "maas", but can be considered "virtual server" and "physical server" for all practical purposes. The options then are: a.) keep things as they are, having 2 images for download. Essentially a "ubuntu server + -virtual kernel" for virtual environments and a "ubuntu server + -generic kernel" for hardware. b.) add new '-server' flavor, and reduce those 2 images to 1. This incurs cost of additional size for virtual users. c.) add existing -generic flavor everywhere. It seems that we have 2 different things for good reason. The drivers that are unnecessary in a virtual environment total to be quite large. I think the best thing to do at the omemnt is keep the status-quo (a) and reduce other differences to the 2 images. We will reduce the delta so that the 2 are really the same other than "hardware enablement" packages (kernel , grub/uefi ... ) and document that cleanly. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1415634 Title: RFC: replace linux-virtual with linux-server / tune kernel packages To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1415634/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
