On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 11:59:55AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-) > > Yes, thanks -- I admit to having skimmed over it in my mail-catchup > attempt. > > > >especially how the rings interact. As a side note, everyone agreed > > >the word "rings" breaks down the further you get away from the center, > > >but nobody has come up with something better yet (Venns? Blobs? > > >Zones?). > > If people aren't gonna want to rename Rawhide to Bikeshed, then maybe > *this* could be called that. :) > > > >Right now the Fedora distribution is 1 ring, let's call it ring 1. The > > >distribution contains an operating system and numerous applications > > >that run on that operating system. When we talk about defining ring 0 > > >we're really talking about distinguishing between the operating system > > >and the applications that run on top of it. > > Speaking of bikesheds... we've traditionally defined the Fedora > operating system as *the whole thing*, so now calling a subset of that > the OS gives plenty of room for quibbling. I'm hoping to forestall that > by saying that regardless of that, we all know what you mean here. That > may be optimistic. > > > > >We want to go from this: > > >Ring 1: The Fedora Distribution > > >To this: > > > > > >The Fedora Distribution: > > >Ring 0: The Linux Operating System > > >Ring 1: The Applications and Stacks > > > > > >It seems quite modest, but working through the details on what this > > >means is hard. What is an operating system in the Linux context? Ring > > >0 will likely have the strictest set of policies of all the rings, so > > >we want to keep it as small as possible, but it is more than a minimal > > >install. These are the traits of rings in general and ring 0 in > > >particular as I see it: > > > > > >1. Ring 0 is a repository of rpm packages built in koji. > > > > > >2. Ring 0 contains, but is not limited to, the minimal install of > > >packages to go from Power On to a login prompt. > > In my conception, the "is limited to" set was Ring 0, and the thing you > are calling Ring 0 was Ring 1, and then Envs and Stacks was Ring 2. I > can live with ajusting things; just noting. For the rest of this > message I will use your levels. > > > >3. Ring 0 passes repoclosure on its own (Packages listed as hard > > >"Requires" in a ring 0 spec file are themselves are implicitly ring 0). > > *nod* > > > >4. Ring 0 is not self hosting. Packages listed in "BuildRequires" do > > >not need to be members of Ring 1. This isn't ideal, but it's a > > >practical consideration. > > When you say Ring 1 here, you mean Ring 0, right? > > > > >5. Ring membership is at the source package level, not the binary > > >package. If one source package's binary/noarch sub-package is in ring > > >0, all sub-packages are in ring 0. > > Hmmmm. Are we sure about that? That means that one can't, for example, > subpackage an optional feature with huge dependencies (or cascading > explosion of dependencies) to keep them from being pulled into Ring 0. > > If this is the case, are we open to having *separate* Ring 1 packages > built from the same source but with different options?
This is what I replied to the original mail too, nobody answered ... Simo. > > > >6. Ring 0 contains the minimal libraries that define the OS API/ABI, > > >such as glibc. This probably happens implicitly by #3, repoclosure. > > > > > >7. Ring 0 contains the tools needed to update existing packages and > > >install new packages. > > At the DNF level or at the Yum level? > > > > -- > Matthew Miller > <mat...@fedoraproject.org> > Fedora Project Leader -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
