[CentOS-devel] how minimal is a minimal too minimal

Karanbir Singh mail-lists at karan.org
Wed Mar 19 17:21:56 UTC 2014


Hi,

On 03/19/2014 04:57 PM, Dan Porter wrote:
> I like the name |server-minimal|, or even just |minimal| for the purpose
> of what the current version is.
> 
> Perhaps this super skinny version ought to be called.. |micro|?
> 

ok, micro is interesting.

> On 19 March 2014 16:41, Jeff Sheltren <jeff at tag1consulting.com
> <mailto:jeff at tag1consulting.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Karanbir Singh wrote:
>     >
>     > the aim being to setup a base image, that is under 150mb to
>     download and
>     > deploy.
>     >
>     >
> 
>     I think there are (at least) two different types of "minimal" that could
>     (and should) be provided.
> 
>     1) "working server minimal" which would have at least yum and sshd --
>     this could be similar to what we do for minimal now, though I'm not
>     totally opposed to shrinking it down a bit more.

Would the present minimal install be suiteable for this? we have an iso
dedicated to the role ( and afaik, its the most downloaded iso and the
most popular install mechanism on c6 ).

>     2) "really really minimal -- and we mean minimal!" -- where the goal is
>     to strip out as much as possible, no docs, no yum, no ssshd, etc.

yeah - but no sshd might be a challenge since then we pre-assume that
console is the way to get in.


-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list