[CentOS-devel] how minimal is a minimal too minimal
dpreid at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 16:57:01 UTC 2014
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?
On 19 March 2014 16:41, Jeff Sheltren <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.
> 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.
> I don't have a use for (2) personally, but use (1) -- or at least one of
> my own making -- quite frequently. I'd be happy if we could keep both.
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS-devel