On Fri Feb 13 2015 at 2:02:27 AM Colin Walters <walt...@verbum.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages > > that are not present on Product or Spin install media? > > It's worth noting here that having two levels is not really going > to be new to the ecosystem; e.g. Ubuntu has had Main/Universe > for quite a while: > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu > > I just have one question: You're defining this split at the *runtime* > level. Last I saw the Base working group was trying to cut down > BuildRequires > (but sadly I haven't seen them fighting Requires yet - I would love > if someone did that for Perl) > > If Ring 0 packages BuildRequire Ring 1 (or further) > packages, ultimately their quality is going to be somewhat contingent > on them. Using bundling as a differentiator though, it does seem > like there's likely a lot less pressure to require quick security > updates for BuildRequires. > > Anyways, something I think is missing from here is more > details on how this "on the install media set" distinction > is maintained over time. If it isn't separate (yum) repositories > it seems like it's going to be hard to enforce. > > (Who would notice if a package in 0 started depending on a ring > 1? Would that imply the new dependency needed another > review pass?) > Having bumped into bundled library issues in the past, this to me sounds like a good idea... provided exclude libraries at the beginning. So: this should only leaf packages, plus applications that happen to have add-on packages that depend on them, and only those that are not Ring 0 (not shipped in one of the install media). A nice alternative is to use the staging area we talked about for this Ring 1 category. Best regards, -- Michel
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
