On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Radek Vokal <rvo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/06/2012 07:00 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 22:25 -0600, Michael Ekstrand wrote: >> >>> On 12/05/2012 03:06 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: >>> >>>> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: >>>> >>>>> Three things: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Fedora is big enough that we have concrete situations where one size >>>>> doesn't fit all. Puppet being broken on F17 (and probably F18 as >>>>> well) >>>>> is a fine example of something within the distro itself. And, as a >>>>> platform for development, offering more version choices to our >>>>> users >>>>> would be a strength. >>>>> >>>> >>>> <heretical> >>>> >>>> Well, then maybe Fedora's too big, and we should move to a model where >>>> Fedora is much smaller, and the grand Fedora universe contains things >>>> that >>>> are packaged *for* one or multiple Fedoras. >>>> >>>> </heretical> >>>> >>> >>> FWIW (probably not much), I also think this is a great idea. It feels >>> strange to me that the same thing contains & manages everything from >>> base system (e.g. kernel through core GNOME stack) and add-on apps (say >>> Battle for Wesnoth, to pick a relatively obvious example). >>> >>> Now, there's a bike shed to be painted over where the lines should be >>> drawn. >>> >> >> We could draw them between Core and Extras! >> >> > So what if we actually do .. but in a different way - eg. we would ensure > that we have stable API, no feature breakage in a release for a package > that do belong to "core" and allow faster turnaround for packages in > "extras" .. it's not like locking it down as it used to be but defining > more strict rules for certain set of packages. > > > Doesn't this describe the critpath[1] process? Rich [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_path_package
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
