On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > >> >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor >> >> > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and >> >> > single source and mechanism for installing packages. >> >> >> >> I haven't seen anything from any WG that would suggest a deviation >> >> from RPM packaging guidelines or using separate repositories. It is a >> >> valid concern and one we need to keep an eye on. >> > >> > Um. As I read it, three out of four WGs - desktop, server, and cloud - >> > have at least discussed the possibility of implementing what are, in >> > essence, secondary package management layers. The details differ - 'app >> > bundles' for desktop, 'containers' or whatever for server and cloud - >> > but the effect is the same. >> >> Secondary being the key word. None of them are proposing alternate >> RPM repositories or changing the Fedora packaging guidelines. Tom was >> expressing that he is concerned the Fedora repos would go away or be >> of decreased quality. None of the WG proposals are altering those >> repos. They will still exist, much as they do today. > > The repos will still exist, but things will be different. At present, > the Fedora repos are the single unified official Fedora method for > deploying software on Fedora products. Any other method you can use to > deploy software is not an 'official Fedora' thing. Correct. > If these plans go ahead, we will have multiple official/blessed methods > for deploying software on Fedora, potentially with different policies > about what software they can include and how that software should be > arranged, how dependencies should be handled, and all the rest of it. > Some of these methods will be shared between products, and some will > either only exist in certain products, or at least be clearly associated > with and 'owned' by those products. Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we know them today from still existing, with still the same quality. As far as I'm aware, the products are still planning on being built from packages provided by the Fedora project, from the Fedora buildsystem. So yes, there may very well be different options. That doesn't mean they can't also be the same if you choose not to use those different things. I understand your concern and it's something worth watching, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that things will be horrible or users will be forced to give up RPMs and repos. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
