On Tue, 09.10.12 00:34, Bill Nottingham (notting@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Miloslav Trmač (mitr@xxxxxxxx) said: > > > is any current data > > > available about how our minimal footprint got worse/better over time in > > > both terms of packages and disk space, and which packages are to blame > > > for it? > > > > > > If the libmicrohttpd dep really is problematic I am happy to split it > > > off, but I'd really like some hard data first whether doing this would > > > help more than a trivial bit to achieve a smaller minimal installation > > > set. > > > > One more network-listening service, let alone an unauthenticated one, > > is way "more than a trivial bit" IMHO. > > Well, it *is* off by default. > > Checking the minimal install of the moment: > > Install 38 Packages (+160 Dependent packages) > > Total download size: 129 M > Installed size: 505 M > > In that minimal install, the following disabled services exist: > NetworkManager-wait-online.service > autovt@.service > console-getty.service > console-shell.service > debug-shell.service > dnsmasq.service > ip6tables.service > iptables.service > rdisc.service > saslauthd.service > wpa_supplicant.service > systemd-journal-gatewayd.socket > > The follwing 'traditional' services are enabled: > auditd.service > sshd.service > sm-client.service > sendmail.service > NetworkManager.service > crond.service > rsyslog.service > > Bill Maybe the definition of the fedora base set needs a bit of updating, given that it considers rdisc, saslauthd, audit, dnsmasq, syslog, wpa supplicant and sendmail basic. For container setups I need nothing of that... (heck! for my non-containerized server I don't need that either...) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
