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? Dan 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. > > -Jeff > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140319/f76c310a/attachment-0007.html>