In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the Modular Kernel Packaging
for Cloud change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking for
everyone's feedback. Note this is my first change proposal so I might
have misunderstood things or whatever.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 16:42:11 +0900,
Sandro \red\ Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Okay, I poked around in the yum source, yum docs and kernel packages a
bit. So yum (and some testing confirms, dnf too) does
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Sandro red Mathys
r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:46:02PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
Yesterday, I updated to Josh's 2.5 kernel, then I removed kernel
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:25:48AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
Not sure if there's a good fix to this. We'd either limit people to
only being able to get rid of kernel-drivers with some dancing around
with different kernel versions and some rebooting, etc. Or we allow
people to remove the
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:52:15PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
In the past ~24h, I've been preparing the Modular Kernel Packaging
for Cloud change. Before I submit it to the wrangler, I'm looking
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Sandro red Mathys
r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar?
firmwre.
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
include it in my kernel numbers for that reason.
He just has to
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:28:56PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
What about Anaconda? I guess it does have its own mechanic to
guarantee a kernel is installed, right? Probably hardcoded as well.
Since we're going
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:23:15AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Sandro red Mathys
r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar?
firmwre.
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:16:00AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Sandro red Mathys
r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
in general you need to multiply the wasted space for each instance
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:38:44AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
in general you need to multiply the wasted space for each instance
Exactly,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:16:00AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
That's the point, we want a reasonably small package while still
providing the required functionality. Not sure how providing a fixed
size number is helping
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
If it's _necessary_, that's one thing. I've yet to really see any data
backing up necessity on any of this at all though. Right now it seems
to be sitting in the nice to have category.
For the record, it is _literally_ sitting in
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
If it's _necessary_, that's one thing. I've yet to really see any data
backing up necessity on any of this at all though. Right now it seems
to be sitting in the
Am 06.03.2014 18:04, schrieb Don Zickus:
Maybe impose only xfs as the fs of choice or some other restrictions and
chop it further, but then we lose flexibility
hopefully a joke :-)
* i use a ton of virtual Fedora instances
* any of them is using ext4
* some may benefit from XFS but not that
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:33:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Right. When I said I had kernel-core and kernel-drivers, I wasn't
being theoretical. I already did the work in the spec file to split
it into
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:10:46PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar?
firmwre.
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
include it in my kernel numbers for that reason.
Currently, this is required by the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:10:46PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar?
firmwre.
Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
That brings up a question though, how often would cloud expect to do a
yum update of individual packages as opposed to just updating the
entire image? If we expect the 3 kernel magic to work there, then
Unless we jump into Colin's
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Sandro red Mathys
r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So, in our case hardware drivers are rather unnecessary and the kernel
experts might know other ways to shrink the footprint for our limited
use cases. The kernel we require supports all primary architectures
(i686
Hi,
I'm not overly thrilled with having multi-tiered driver packages.
That leads to major headaches when we start shuffling things around
from one driver package to another. The current solution I have
prototyped is a kernel-core/kernel-drivers split. Here core could
be analogous to
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm not overly thrilled with having multi-tiered driver packages.
That leads to major headaches when we start shuffling things around
from one driver package to another. The current solution I have
prototyped is a
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:25:12PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
For example, lets start with 100MB package requirement for the kernel (and
say 2 GB for
Am 05.03.2014 16:02, schrieb Josh Boyer:
FWIW, the existing kernel package installed today (a debug kernel
even) is ~142 MB. 123MB of that is the /lib/modules content. ~6MB of
that is vmlinuz. The remaining 13MB is the initramfs, which is
actually something that composes on the system
Hi,
Agree, I don't think it makes much sense to split things into many small
pieces.
- Do you need/want a firewall (requires iptables, etc)?
I'd say yes by default, but being able to remove it might be useful
(kernel-netfilter subpackage)?
So you agree multi-tiered subpackages
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:04 -0500,
Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So you agree multi-tiered subpackages is a bad idea, but then you
propose a netfilter specific subpackage? ... Probably not. They'll
likely just be in kernel-core.
Couldn't the planned module provides
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:04 -0500,
Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So you agree multi-tiered subpackages is a bad idea, but then you
propose a netfilter specific subpackage? ... Probably not. They'll
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:16:21 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should start higher,
say 150MB, then it doesn't matter to me. :-)
This entire disk size optimization seems kind of weird to me.
I just booted a f20 offiical cloud image in
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:28:45AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:16:21 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should start higher,
say 150MB, then it doesn't matter to me. :-)
This entire disk size optimization seems
Am 05.03.2014 17:28, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:16:21 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should start higher,
say 150MB, then it doesn't matter to me. :-)
This entire disk size optimization seems kind of weird to
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 05.03.2014 17:28, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:16:21 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should start
higher, say 150MB, then it
Am 05.03.2014 17:45, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 05.03.2014 17:28, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:16:21 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:59 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:04 -0500,
Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So you agree multi-tiered subpackages is a bad idea, but then you
propose a
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:04AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Depends on what is targeted. Strictly cloud? Or also someone running
Fedora as a guest in virt-manager / boxes?
I'm of the opinion the latter is probably what we should shoot for.
It's going to be the broadest target that is still
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm not overly thrilled with having multi-tiered driver packages.
That leads to major headaches when we start shuffling things around
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:25:12PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
For example, lets start
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
in general you need to multiply the wasted space for each instance
Exactly, you usually have hundreds or even thousands of instances
running. Sure,
37 matches
Mail list logo
