Comment # 10 on bug 1091097 from Fabian Vogt

(In reply to Thorsten Kukuk from comment #8)
> If we speak really about images where we use kernel-default-base, the
> request is invalid. The virtualisation images are not for development and
> debugging, they are for customers who need a minimal footprint and easy way
> to deploy.
>
> For internal we can build images with kernel-default.
> Adding all helpful modules to kernel-default-base makes it unuseable as a
> small kernel for virtualisation environments, where you don't want over
> 600MB installed if 67MB are enough.

IMO kernel-default-base should be the same as kernel-default but just exclude
support for physical hardware. Anything else is just asking for trouble.
I can definitely see use-cases for 9pfs in production.

(In reply to Maximilian Meister from comment #9)
> in general it's only an issue for a kvm development image
> 
> but this doesn't apply to other images (XEN, vmware, OpenStack, HyperV ...)
> only to kvm, as 9p is the recommended way to share data from the host with
> the vm (http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/9p_virtio)
> 
> would it make sense to build a dedicated kvm-development image which just
> has the different kernel? it would only be used by developers working on
> kubic, and not production environments

There could be a new image type with kernel-default, which would then also run
on physical hardware.