On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 13:57 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/02/2015 12:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 11:59:55AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > >>> Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-) > >> > >> Yes, thanks -- I admit to having skimmed over it in my mail-catchup > >> attempt. > >> > >>>> especially how the rings interact. As a side note, everyone agreed > >>>> the word "rings" breaks down the further you get away from the center, > >>>> but nobody has come up with something better yet (Venns? Blobs? > >>>> Zones?). > >> > >> If people aren't gonna want to rename Rawhide to Bikeshed, then maybe > >> *this* could be called that. :) > >> > >>>> Right now the Fedora distribution is 1 ring, let's call it ring 1. The > >>>> distribution contains an operating system and numerous applications > >>>> that run on that operating system. When we talk about defining ring 0 > >>>> we're really talking about distinguishing between the operating system > >>>> and the applications that run on top of it. > >> > >> Speaking of bikesheds... we've traditionally defined the Fedora > >> operating system as *the whole thing*, so now calling a subset of that > >> the OS gives plenty of room for quibbling. I'm hoping to forestall that > >> by saying that regardless of that, we all know what you mean here. That > >> may be optimistic. > >> > >> > >>>> We want to go from this: > >>>> Ring 1: The Fedora Distribution > >>>> To this: > >>>> > >>>> The Fedora Distribution: > >>>> Ring 0: The Linux Operating System > >>>> Ring 1: The Applications and Stacks > >>>> > >>>> It seems quite modest, but working through the details on what this > >>>> means is hard. What is an operating system in the Linux context? Ring > >>>> 0 will likely have the strictest set of policies of all the rings, so > >>>> we want to keep it as small as possible, but it is more than a minimal > >>>> install. These are the traits of rings in general and ring 0 in > >>>> particular as I see it: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Ring 0 is a repository of rpm packages built in koji. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Ring 0 contains, but is not limited to, the minimal install of > >>>> packages to go from Power On to a login prompt. > >> > >> In my conception, the "is limited to" set was Ring 0, and the thing you > >> are calling Ring 0 was Ring 1, and then Envs and Stacks was Ring 2. I > >> can live with ajusting things; just noting. For the rest of this > >> message I will use your levels. > >> > >>>> 3. Ring 0 passes repoclosure on its own (Packages listed as hard > >>>> "Requires" in a ring 0 spec file are themselves are implicitly ring 0). > >> > >> *nod* > >> > >>>> 4. Ring 0 is not self hosting. Packages listed in "BuildRequires" do > >>>> not need to be members of Ring 1. This isn't ideal, but it's a > >>>> practical consideration. > >> > >> When you say Ring 1 here, you mean Ring 0, right? > >> > >> > >>>> 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? > > > > This is what I replied to the original mail too, nobody answered ... > > I answered- did you miss it? Apparently never got it, I've had some annoying SPAM false positives recently that involved fedora lists posts (I also missed a chunk of flock mailing :-/) Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
