On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:17:09PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Petr Šabata wrote: > > Good news, everyone, > > > > the first draft of the module metadata format is now available > > for you to comment on. We've decided to go with YAML so it > > should be fairly readable. You can view the latest version here: > > > > https://pagure.io/fm-metadata/blob/master/f/metadata.yaml > > This all seems really abstract.
This is a draft of the module definition format. You could consider it "comps with extra metadata" at this point. In the future we expect to build modules from various other sources, not just RPMs, and deliver them in various format, not just RPM repositories. The format is meant to be abstract and hide build/implementation details from the module packager. One source should be usable for all these situations/purposes. > How about the first step is - take all of the transitive build dependencies > starting from the kernel, put those in a separate rpm-md repository from > everything else? > > That'll drive the answer to lots of other problems like for how long > do we keep synthesizing the "gigantic Everything repo" in addition vs > changing over the fedora-repos package, etc. How to manage migrating > things between them, when a new build dependency appears, etc. > > There's of course a lot more possible radical steps to take - to repeat, > I really like the OpenEmbedded code organization, model, toolchain etc., > but if we can't even manage to split into two repos with any kind of speed, > at least it'll be an informative exercise. I think this is out of scope of this thread. P > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
