On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I > > think it has to be. > > No you could also use a different kernel image; build your own kernel; > use a compressed filesystem, don't use a kernel at all and some > container based approach instead of full virt for your cloud instances > (you could even base them on a btrfs subvolume and save more space > that way). > > Outside of the cloud use case the disk space added by modules and > firmware does not matter a bit (so I am ignoring this cases). > > So there are lots of other ways to achieve what you want without > splitting the kernel into hundreds of sub packages. So while it is a > way it is not "the only way". As reluctant as I am to introduce new kernel packages, an ultra-minimal kernel package for use in cloud environments may make more sense than splitting up the one-size-fits-all packages into hundreds of sub-packages. But even this option is a lot of work, and isn't a panacea. With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud package ?
You don't. More importantly I think the goal of shrinking the minimal install is a bad one. We're chasing a size that is better suited by custom spins or specific cloud installs. It should not be a goal of a distribution provider to crreate something custom tailored for a specific environment.
-sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
