On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:11:08PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > I wasn't being dismissive. I have seen no plans to alter the core of > > how Fedora, at a package level, is built. In fact, if I did see a > > proposal that said "we're not going to ship repositories or RPMs" I'd > > be pretty damned upset, and I wouldn't support that. > To be fair, I do recall Matt's original rings proposal discussing a > core, different stacks on top of that, a 'commons' repository of packages, > and things like COPRs on the outside. While it's not proposing moving > away from repositories or RPMs, I did read that proposal as moving > away from the current paradigm of One Big Repo Of Everything in favor > of potentially multiple smaller repos. In that paradigm, things would > change somewhat for users even if they were ignoring the N products. I'm still not completely opposed to this. :) It would include managing relationships (dependencies and conflicts) between the COPRs-like repos as basically higher-level units than packages. That _would_ change the experience -- although they'd still be repositories and still RPMs, at least up until the application container level. The repositories wouldn't necesssarily be completely decoupled -- think of it more as policy separation like free and nonfree in... some other RPM distributions meant to layer on top of Fedora. They work together and can both be enabled at once (and packages from one can depend on packages from the other, but, for example, maybe not the other way around). But until we can really come up with clear reasons for a separation, I'm not pushing for it. -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
