> I think of it as an union model, where each layer is both self-contained > in terms of package dependencies but also in the requirements it > fulfills in terms of user/market. > > eg > > layer 0 of the union > "base" - minimum set to get the machine booting and operating > > layer 1 of the union > "core" - set of functionality people expect from a consumer oriented > linux distro This is what needs to be defined "what people expect" I'm sure you have an idea of what you think should be in there but it's not. > > layer 2 of the union > "extras" - more "obscure" functionality for example because it's a > relatively small userbase but also because it can be new and emerging > things. In addition this can be alternative implementations to core > functionality. An example of this could be wu-ftpd or xfce or .. So far in extras we have examples of packages with "small" userbases as: zope and plone xmms abiword bittorrent cyrus-imapd inkscape koffice and in core we have such mass-market winners as: GFS ElectricFence aqbanking ccs iptraf inn jonas magma lam mtr-gtk xbase slrn Now you tell me does that list make sense to you? It doesn't to me. I figure that people making a beowulf cluster can learn how to yum install ccs lam magma and friends on their own drawing from extras instead of having to have them in core. > layer 3 of the union > "dedicated repos" - very specialist repositories that each target what > is pretty much a niche market and who's requirements are very different > or unique but isolated. Examples could be a beowulf repo, or a "video > montage" repo. but most of the beowulf tools are already IN core. This is what I'm talking about - right now the distinction b/t what gets into core and what goes into extras is more or less 'where does the packager work' -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
