On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:31:04PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > >5. Ring membership is at the source package level, not the binary > > >package. If one source package's binary/noarch sub-package is in ring > > >0, all sub-packages are in ring 0. > > Hmmmm. Are we sure about that? That means that one can't, for example, > subpackage an optional feature with huge dependencies (or cascading > explosion of dependencies) to keep them from being pulled into Ring 0. > > If this is the case, are we open to having *separate* Ring 1 packages > built from the same source but with different options? Yeah. E.g. it would really surprise me if you could keep libgcc or libstdc++ packages out of Ring 0. But do you want because of that all the other subpackages of gcc (almost 50) with all their dependencies. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
