Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 01:37, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have
you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what
Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know anyone
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 18:21, Colin Walters a écrit :
Many upstream build/deployment systems have substantial portions of the
metadata (BuildRequires/Requires) that RPM needs, it just needs to be
manually maintained/duplicated in the spec.
And they are usually missing substancial portions of
Am 14.01.2014 10:50, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
already virtualized infrastructures
Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation
(and i can't wait docker/selinux integration for more security), the FS
layered approach allows to save spaces.
Am 14.01.2014 11:53, schrieb H. Guémar:
only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
already virtualized infrastructures
Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation (and
i can't wait docker/selinux
integration for more security),
My apologies if you felt i misquoted you, i didn't intend that.
I do plenty of SaaS deployments at $DAYJOB, and i can easily pack hundreds
to thousands // running containers on a single machine.
Remember that Fedora is on the innovative side of the distro spectrum, yes
vhost is the present, but
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So instead of the perenial let's drop rpm and use upstream incomplete
systems
You might note I didn't say that.
I'd like to see the people working in those language communities
work at adding the missing bits to those upstream
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 04:39:12PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
You're preaching to the choir. But if in practice people really don't
deploy things via the distribution packages, it doesn't matter how
awesomely secure the distribution packages are. Something that you're
not using is never
Adam Williamson wrote:
So to bring it to the context of Fedora.next - if some of the
'Fedora.next' products want to have the capability to deploy 'stable',
i.e. bundled, stacks, then I think they should be 'allowed' to do so (in
the sense that we can't really stop them), but the mechanisms
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 08:39 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 04:39:12PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
You're preaching to the choir. But if in practice people really don't
deploy things via the distribution packages, it doesn't matter how
awesomely secure the
Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for such
ecosystems would simply be to make sure their distribution
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 18:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for such
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know anyone who deploys
Wordpress plugins via distribution packages?
On 10.01.2014 21:12, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:58:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
So the question becomes, what is it appropriate for a distribution to do
in this situation? My personal opinion is that what's appropriate for a
distribution to do is also, happily,
On 12.01.2014 22:34, Alek Paunov wrote:
[*] Crucial aspect of any sophisticated data management system is the
data query and manipulation language. Unfortunately the choices are
rather limited - Imperative approaches (recently resurrected by some
NoSQL DBs) are weak and error
On 12.01.2014 22:34, Alek Paunov wrote:
- sccd-web: WebUI exposing full functionality, alternatively Cockpit
(OpenLMI WebUI) extension.
...
- NTH: SCC local state inheritance between instances
Fedora Social: Almost every developer or sysadmins like to demonstrate
how clean and clever
On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Alek Paunov a...@declera.com wrote:
Once we apply FS snapshotting, combined with the SCC NTHs above, there
are at least two appealing use-cases:
- reusing one base e.g. F20 server container image for both the host and
the incompatible containers (e.g. when
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 20:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:39:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 18:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So, like Matthew Miller, I think we cannot possibly punt on this issue,
but
I totally DISAGREE with his
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I say this as someone who's spent the last
couple of weeks whacking on a PHPland stack (Owncloud) with a wrench to
achieve precisely that.
For what it's worth, I read over the GitHub tickets, I think you're
headed in
I'm sorry, but you're forgetting one major thing.
Sure there are lots of developers that ignore best practices. There is
nothing new. But there is also a lot of users that do understand best
practices and do want the apps packaged in a clean way.
The apps are not packaged because the developers
tor 2014-01-09 klockan 20:30 -0800 skrev Andrew Lutomirski:
It would be nice, at least, if there was a clean way for these stacks
to be tracked and, if needed, uninstalled. Some of these things
install into /usr, which is a giant mess. (Pip, the one I use the
most, doesn't do that IIRC, but
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:58:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
So the question becomes, what is it appropriate for a distribution to do
in this situation? My personal opinion is that what's appropriate for a
distribution to do is also, happily, what's easiest for a distribution
to do: punt
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
update/upgrade and delete the old container or in case of Gnome with a
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 19:58 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for such
ecosystems would simply
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
On 12/19/2013 05:33 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:52 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years
ago?
Standard C++ does not specify an ABI. Compilers get to handle that
themselves.
We adhere to the Itanium C++ ABI.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it with a
new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the update/upgrade and
delete the old container or in case of Gnome with a new App
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You can, for example, use C++, which is a stable standard (a new version was
published 2 years ago, but almost all C++98 code compiles unchanged as
C++11), and Qt, which keeps a stable API and ABI throughout a major version
(the interval
On fim 19.des 2013 14:40, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it with a
new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the update/upgrade and
delete the
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:52 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years
ago?
Standard C++ does not specify an ABI. Compilers get to handle that
themselves.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
update/upgrade and delete the old container or in case of Gnome with a
new App image If I understood Alexander correctly at that
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years ago?
The latest C++ ABI change was with g++ 3.4 (April 18, 2004). g++ 4.0 kept
the 3.4 ABI and so did all 4.x releases.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years ago?
The latest C++ ABI change was with g++ 3.4 (April 18, 2004). g++ 4.0 kept
the 3.4 ABI and so did all 4.x releases.
He's
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:52 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years
ago?
Standard C++ does not specify an ABI. Compilers get to handle that
themselves.
Correct (which can be
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
No.
We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 06:01:04PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
up with everybody agreeing
On mið 18.des 2013 12:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
Workstation WG probably will use GNOME Containers:
https://www.guadec.org/session/sandboxed-applications-for-gnome/
That's not been discussed yet, much less decided. I would advocate
for using what the Base WG and/or Env and Stacks WG settles on
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:53:57PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
If you like the idea of always reinventing the wheel seemingly for no good
reason, or just to use the latest flavored language of the day, then great.
Uhm. Exactly because I don't like my stuff breaking every three weeks I
choose
Lars Seipel wrote:
Uhm. Exactly because I don't like my stuff breaking every three weeks I
choose libraries that live up to my expectation. This might involve
assessing the capability of an particular upstream to maintain their
stuff going into the future or just avoiding the latest flavored
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
True, but it
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On mið 18.des 2013 12:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
Workstation WG probably will use GNOME Containers:
https://www.guadec.org/session/sandboxed-applications-for-gnome/
That's not been discussed yet, much less
On mið 18.des 2013 16:17, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Containers are primarily an isolation mechanism; not a way to install,
update or deploy software.
Right
Just use containers shifts the problem
to how do I update the container which is at least as complex
(because now the tools need to peek
On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Lars Seipel lars.sei...@gmail.com wrote:
But just freezing libraries at some random version essentially creates a
fork which has to be maintained inside Fedora. Who is going to develop
programs specifically for Fedora? Most developers are targeting the
broader
Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) said:
Really, this should be solved in upstream projects so you can expect a
stable library API across distribution boundaries. Doing it in Fedora is
not actually solving the problem.
Thanks for the response.
Is it really upstream causing the
Hello,
Looking at the current WG outputs, it seems that nobody is taking on
the problem of stable application runtimes:
Primary requirement
===
If all Fedora Products are released at a fairly fast cadence, and with
a fairly short support cycle, how do I write, deploy and run an
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
proposing to solve this. Is it the Base WG or the Env and Stacks WG?
Or is it up to Server and
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
proposing to solve this.
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
True, but it becomes the responsibility of the container creator, not
Fedora.
Anyways, I of
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
True, but it
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:27 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
there are
lots of libraries where, for example, .so.6 would be a perfectly fine
replacement for .so.7, but the system doesn't know that.
I think the authors of these libraries screwed up. Namely, libudev and
libffi were both
On þri 17.des 2013 22:24, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
Looking at the current WG outputs, it seems that nobody is taking on
the problem of stable application runtimes:
Probably because no maintainer has been asked for how long release cycle
they considered they could/would maintain their
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
No.
We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse an
abominable hack like SCLs) just to allow obsolete applications to run on
current versions of Fedora or the other way round. Current applications need
On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
No.
We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse an
abominable hack like SCLs) just to allow obsolete applications to run
55 matches
Mail list logo
