But in order to be really useful unless they're all-in on Fedora, many
people will want the python version for their
infrastructure/environment, not whichever python we happen to ship in a
given release.
That's always been the case and why software collections came about. Rewriting system tools to make it easier for someone who might like to use a different version of python at /usr/bin sounds like overkill. A lot EC2 AMIs, public and private, are 8GB+ snapshots with 2GB+ of OS installed.
I may be "broken record"ing but I'm still seeing context switches between the cloud "flavors" (atomic, docker base, cloud-ified server). We need to be careful were making the right changes to the right "flavor". Ripping everything out of Docker Base makes sense, not so much for Cloud Server. A common baseline across the board that says "Cloud Server is Base + Server and Docker Base is Base + Stripped System Utils" may not be worth the effort to maintain.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:00:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> But cloud isn't minimal. It's Cloud. It needs to be useful for
> Cloud-y things. Like management via Ansible, etc. If you're going
> for minimal, you guys might as well become the Base image which
> doesn't exist today.
But in order to be really useful unless they're all-in on Fedora, many
people will want the python version for their
infrastructure/environment, not whichever python we happen to ship in a
given release.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
