On 09/02/2015 12:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
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.
Right, so there are two avenues that spring to mind:
1. Do we split packages up into separate builds to isolate
subpackages? This sounds pretty ugly. A maintainer would have to
keep them manually in sync. A gcc-ring0 and a gcc-ring1 source rpm?
2. Ring 0 can include 2 separate composes: The required subpackage
pieces go into one repository that does pass repoclosure, the
remaining subpackages go into a second repository with less strict
requirements.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
