2005/11/27, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 10:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 07:37:08AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > > > I don't doubt this. However implicit in this is some idea of what the > > > target Fedora Core user looks like -- some kind of user profile. I > > > think the goal of this thread is to make this idea explicit. > > > Are we targeting developers? Corporate desktop users? People who > > > travel a lot? People setting up LAMP servers? Some combination? > > > > I'm for going all the way -- it should contain no end-user applications, > > just the framework for making those applications run. C'mon, let's make Core > > be just that. > > actually I tend to disagree, not sure how much say I should have in this > though. > > 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. interesting thought. > > eg > > layer 0 of the union > "base" - minimum set to get the machine booting and operating thats what we call "minimum install" right? ;) > > layer 1 of the union > "core" - set of functionality people expect from a consumer oriented > linux distro i agree here aswell. this should include everything that is needed for a regular end user to do the daily trivial tasks. from an instant messaging/irc client to a web browser for adding bugzilla entrys and find help/info on the net. > > 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 .. in my experience before stuff comes there usually its been in a higher layer before and got some love there already. > > 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. i see that new stuff can be plain pushed faster with "specialist repos" also as the name you gave it already implies there are people dedicated to the certain task working on it, which also implies that those people really "use" the tools they package. thats not necasserily true with the lower layers. Its a good way to get stuff ready for a lower layer if specialists of a certain task help with getting the upstream work going. > > again, for me it's essential that each layer of the union is > self-contained in terms of packages (eg no dependencies to higher > layers, lower layers is of course ok) and of functionality (eg if a > layer contains a certain functionality, it should contain in a general > useful matter. this doesn't mean that all optional things should be > there, but enough functionality that most people expect should be > there). > > For me the difference between layer 2 and 3 is also a "market segment" > one. Some things will be so specialist that it's better to have a few > experts have their own repo that they maintain as a coherent add-on > function than lumping it all in one big repo. Well theres a huge difference in my eyes between plain rolling a current state to rpm and pushing necassery changes and improvements upstream while beeing in the process of creating a real good solution for a task. so yes... "task forces" make definitely sense. regards, Rudolf Kastl > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
