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

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@tag1consulting.com mailto:jeff@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.