Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:51:14AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > This can be addressed by having a Ring 1 policy that packages may > > change, but all currently-supported Ring 0s need to be buildable from > > the latest Ring 1. If a Ring 1 update would be break that, a compat > > package would be re

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

2015-09-14 23:10 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy : > AFAICS somehow the goals and means have gotten confused, and we are >> trying to find goals that would make sense in a specific >> implementation method; that’s completely backwards. >> > > Let’s think about the/produced artifacts/, whatever that is

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

2015-09-15 15:48 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy : > On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: > >> Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): >> >>> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and run

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 2015-09-15, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > It would be really helpful if we had some automated mechanism that > upon rebase, all packages that used the rebase package as > a BuildRequires was auto-scratch-built. We have . Unfortnutely it's only a wrapper abov

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > We talked about a related question at flock: Should packages built as > COPRs be allowed into low level rings? The answer from RCM was no, > due to trust and stability issues. I think we're assuming ring 0 is > RPMs because we don't

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/15/2015 07:51 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/15/2015 07:26 AM, Colin Walters wrote: 'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional rings that address communities where self-hosting is a

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/15/2015 07:51 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What h

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 2015-09-14, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/07/2015 05:34 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> So we are going to include all those *-doc subpackages? And all >> languages bindings? E.g look at rpm subpackages. > > Yes, this is a good question. Per elsewhere in the thread, it may > make sense to have 2

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we >> offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What happens >> when a bug in ring 0 require

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/15/2015 07:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What happens when a bug in ring 0 requires a fix in ring 1,

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:26:24AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > One small thing we could do to try to emulate this for ring0 > would be to put all of the spec files for Ring 0 into one git > repository for example. And have actual peer review > for patches, just like one sees on: > http://lists.o

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:26:24AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > 'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > > > I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody > > with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional > > rings that address c

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we > offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What happens > when a bug in ring 0 requires a fix in ring 1, but the support > window for ring 1 has clo

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody > with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional > rings that address communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept > may be useful and d

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: > >> Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): >> >>> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and run an executable dependent on Fedora ABI” (e.g. kernel version requir

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/14/2015 05:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > You are right that we do need to think about overall goals to be > achieved, then the policies that achieve those goals. For my part I > am interested in distinguishing the OS from the applications that run > on top of it. This might be the differe

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): >> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, >> perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and >> run an executable dependent on Fedora ABI” (e.g. kernel version >> requirement +glibc+locale data+Python 3 int

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/07/2015 05:34 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 2.9.2015 v 20:59 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): 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. So we are going to include a

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/07/2015 06:52 AM, Miloslav Trmac wrote: [snip] Oh I’m not at all suggesting that the Fedora universe should not be self-hosting, or that this self-hosting property should not be regularly verified by mass rebuilds or the like. I just wanted to say that that having various /subsets/ of the

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/07/2015 06:42 AM, Ian Malone wrote: On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac wrote: Also, it seems to me that it would be useful to, at least conceptually, to not think about Fedora as a self-hosting perpetual motion^Wrecompilation machine, but as “just another huge application” bei

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/07/2015 05:21 AM, Miloslav Trmac wrote: 2015-09-02 23:24 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy mailto:b...@redhat.com>>: [blc] >> 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-pa

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

2015-09-07 15:42 GMT+02:00 Ian Malone : > On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > > Also, it seems to me that it would be useful to, at least conceptually, > to > > not think about Fedora as a self-hosting perpetual motion^Wrecompilation > > machine, but as “just another huge applic

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 7 September 2015 at 13:21, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > > Also, it seems to me that it would be useful to, at least conceptually, to > not think about Fedora as a self-hosting perpetual motion^Wrecompilation > machine, but as “just another huge application” being built using compilers > and other t

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

Dne 2.9.2015 v 20:59 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): > 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. So we are going to include all those *-doc subpackages? And all language

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

2015-09-02 23:24 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy : > [blc] > >> 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. > > [simo] > > Can you elaborate more on this point (5) ?

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 14:24 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/02/2015 02:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 13:57 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > >> On 09/02/2015 12:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 20

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/02/2015 02:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 13:57 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 09/02/2015 12:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: 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

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 13:57 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/02/2015 12:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > 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

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/02/2015 12:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: 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-catch

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/02/2015 12:31 PM, 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

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/02/2015 12:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-) I read it last week. Perhaps the lack of commentary isn't because of the title. It's because there is nothing new here. The propo

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/02/2015 12:24 PM, Adam Miller wrote: On 08/31/2015 10:18 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: For today's meeting we didn't really use zodbot minute keeping features, so in the interest of sparking some discussion I'd like to recap. At Flock 2015 there was a 2 hour session on the subject of rings w

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/02/2015 12:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:31:04PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: 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. H. Are we

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

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

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 15:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> (Also, the original definition included Anaconda because you need >> something to actually install Fedora Ring 0 with and that brought in >> GTK, etc).) > > I think 'not self-hosting'

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 15:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > (Also, the original definition included Anaconda because you need > something to actually install Fedora Ring 0 with and that brought in > GTK, etc).) I think 'not self-hosting' should be understood to imply 'not self- installing' - ie don't

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:31:04PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > >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. > > H. Are we sure about that? That means t

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

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

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-) I read it last week. Perhaps the lack of commentary isn't because of the title. It's because there is nothing new here. The proposal boils down to "collection/classification

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-) > > On 08/31/2015 10:18 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> >> On 08/31/2015 08:17 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> [snip] >>> >>> Minutes: >>> >>>

Fedora Ring 0 definition

Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-) On 08/31/2015 10:18 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 08/31/2015 08:17 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: [snip] Minutes: Minut