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

Stephen John Smoogen smooge at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 19:43:58 UTC 2014

On 19 March 2014 10:32, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:

> Hi
> Something that keeps coming up is how far can we minimalise an Instance
> / Image / Installer before we cant call it CentOS anymore. In the past,
> what we have generally stuck with is:
> - CentOS Shipped kernel
> - Initscripts
> - functional yum
> - functional openssh-server
> - atleast all of @base
> however, in some cases, openssh-server might not be needed, and
> initscripts has a fairly long dep tree, similarly making yum work needs
> a few things. Can we get away with losing yum as an example and
> replacing it with a script that says 'need yum? I can download and
> install it for you' and have it hit mirror.centos.org for static yum and
> yum dep urls ?
> similarly, should nobase and nocore be acceptable ?
> the aim being to setup a base image, that is under 150mb to download and
> deploy.

The bare minimum I have had to help groups get down to is basically a
kernel+busybox with scripts that they could install whatever they wanted
from there.  As I see busybox isn't installed by default anymore on Fedora
I can see this was a lot longer in the past than I realized. If there is a
'newer' shinier replacement to busybox I don't know what that is but it may
be more of the 'way' to go these days.

I would call that a nano install. It should give you just enough to get
other stuff onto a box to make it usable if you have the time and love to
write the scripts to do the stuff that would need to get yum and other
stuff working.

Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140319/0c3d4aa7/attachment.html>

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list