On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 14:24 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 13:42 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > I think it's okay for drafts / initial versions to look like this, and then > > we can eventually collapse parts down to "#include base" or "#include foo > > from base" / "include base except bar". > > So, my view on this is that you can't specify a product 'with the core > missing'. We have to write up how we want it all to work, from the > kernel up. The other product WGs should do the same. And if the base WG > managed to extract a common core out of that, more power to them. > > But I don't think we can say: > > 'Our product is going to work like this ... > and it is going to have these characteristics ... > and it is going to be built on top of this unknown core that > we have very little influence over or insight into how it works.' Sure, as I said, absolutely the products have to have considerable input into the Base design. It was purely a procedural point as to how exactly would be the best way to go about doing that. I wasn't suggesting that Base should go out and design the base system in a vacuum, and then the products just have to put up with what they come up with. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
