Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Please note, that this proposal is absolutely not about imposing some
> restrictions on who can/should maintain what. It's really just a
> categorization of packages based on our WG's perception of importance to
> Fedora.
Sure, but there is still a distinction in that proposal between first-
class/Core (ring 1) and second-class/Extras (ring 2) packages. Even without
the political/maintainership issues that the old Core/Extras split had,
there were also some technical issues, which this proposal is reintroducing.
Those stem from the requirement that ring 1 be self-hosting. It means that
not only everything required to build ring 1 packages must be in ring 1, but
also everything required to build optional subpackages of ring 1 package
SRPMs! In practice, this means that either, e.g., large portions of TeXLive
end up in ring 1, or we end up having to disable features, documentation
etc. for several packages, or build them as separate SRPMs (which is always
painful; we try to avoid that for a reason).
For those not familiar with the issue from the Fedora Core past, just have a
look at EPEL, where the split still exists. We end up with hacks like a kde-
plasma-nm-extras SRPM that builds some plugins for the kde-plasma-nm package
in RHEL (those that depend on VPN libraries not in RHEL and thus cannot be
built in the RHEL package). Such an -extras package then typically needs to
track the base package exactly, making updates painful (requiring
coordination). (This would be much more of a problem in the fast-moving
Fedora than in RHEL with its extremely conservative update policy.) We also
end up with RHEL's KDE applications having many optional features simply
disabled (at compile time), with no way to add them (other than replacing
the entire packages with ones built with the optional features enabled from
a third-party repository, in this case Rex Dieter's kde-redhat).
IMHO, such a self-hosting "ring 1" is a step backwards, even if the
implementation keeps it open to all Fedora packagers.
(The "ring 0" is likely subject to similar issues and I'm not convinced we
need that, either, even though a self-hosting minimal system has been
proposed for a long time.)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
