Dne 17.2.2015 v 17:18 Petr Pisar napsal(a): > On 2015-02-17, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher >> <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> == Proposal == >>> With these things in mind, I'd like to propose that we amend the >>> packaging policy by splitting it into two forms: >> I think this needs to go beyond simple policy. It needs some >> buildsystem enforcement as well. > [...] >> With the definition you have here, I'm afraid we are going to be >> constantly playing "is or isn't" on whether a package is core or not. >> E.g. things get sucked into the install media due to dependencies and >> nobody notices until it's time to trim the size. It just doesn't seem >> like this would scale, particularly since the distro is rather fluid. >> >> Perhaps instead the Base WG could come up with what they consider >> core, and we could really stick to that? Meaning, things in core >> cannot Require packages outside of core at runtime. > [...] >> I'm OK with this if Ring packages land in a separated repo. That >> could be done by having a separate koji target that spits out things >> into a rings repo. >> >> My concern here is that if everything (ring and core combined) lands >> in the same koji tag and goes through koji just like packages do >> today, we're going to wind up with a big mess. Having dependencies on >> ring packages is going to entangle things and make it very hard to >> clean up later. >> > I agree. > > While it's tempting to "just tune policy a little" (i.e. reduce > packaging guidelines), it's not enough. The implications are huge (from > security, suistainability, trust point of view). My impression from > reading this thread is people do not want mixed system. > > Why not to create a new repository with reduced policy as > Stephen proposed with the one-way dependency rule (between current > Fedora and the new easy-for-beginners repository)? > > If the repository was fully supported by Fedora project (package > databse, dist-git, koji, bodhi, bugzilla) with yum/dnf configuration > knowing the easy-for-beginners repository, then both groups > (deniers and supporters of the mixed system) would be satisfied. > > After some time, we can evaluate if the easy-for-beginners repository is > a viable solution (from all the points of view I listed above). If the > reduced policy is really the golden solution, then we will witness > spontaneous move of packages from Fedora to easy-for-beginners > repository. > > -- Petr > What is wrong with using Copr for the "ring packages". It already works just fine (may be BZ is missing). There are no reviews, no guidelines, you can bundle ... I believe that everybody understands that while Copr is supported by Fedora, you are using these packages on your own risk. I can't imagine better state. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
