On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:25:21PM +0200, Didier Roche wrote: > Le 08/10/2018 à 13:21, Fabiano Fidêncio a écrit : > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:12 +0200, Didier Roche wrote: > > > > > > Yes, we can be more fine-grained, basically: > > > * 16.04 -> Min and recommended is 2Gb (this was bumped when our > > > 16.04.x > > > maintenance image started to include snapd) > > > * 18.04 and onward: 2Gb min, 4Gb recommended. > > > However, if we bump recommended in that file to 4Gb, GNOME Boxes > > > will > > > set that as a default, which we aren't really keen on (the 4Gb > > > recommended is a large estimate for people using a lot of tabs in > > > their > > > browser, which isn't our GNOME Boxes typical usage we are targeting > > > at). > > > > > > Does it makes sense? > > > > On one hand it does, on the other hand ... I'd still prefer to have the > > recommended amount of RAM properly set in osinfo-db. > > > > AFAIR, in Boxes the user can change the amount of RAM to the minimum > > one if their decide to do so. > > > > Also, the recommended disk size has been increased, right? Would be > > nice to have it changed as well. > > > > It's a bit tricky because the configuration is shared between Ubuntu desktop > & server. Ah, it probably would make sense to be able to override these depending on the type of image that we are dealing with. Maybe adding a 'variant' attribute to the <resources> tag would do the trick. > > We discussed that at length within the desktop team, and it seems the > conscensus is to separate the physical install recommendations vs > virtualised one. Will Cooke (manager of the desktop team) has just updated > the wiki page: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements?action=diff&rev2=110&rev1=109. > I hope that facilitate that patch which is increasing a non working > configuration. To me it's really unexpected that requirements for a 2.5 years old image change like that :) But that's your project decision, libosinfo can just follow suit... Acked-by: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
