On 29 June 2017 at 06:07, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Each such "collection" module MUST have one or both of the following:
>
> * A "latest" rolling stream (As above, this would be separate from
> "rawhide", as "latest stable", but could update frequently and
> arbitrarily.)
>
> * One or m
On 07/06/2017 02:58 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:39 -0400, langdon wrote:
On 06/29/2017 11:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
So my expectation is that the number of "collections modules"
that have no strong connection t
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:39 -0400, langdon wrote:
> On 06/29/2017 11:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > So my expectation is that the number of "collections modules"
> > > that have no strong connection to a particular upstream releas
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:48:39PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> capture these discussions so that when we (I, for sure :) ) forget,
> we can see the "threads". Should we shift this kind of discussion to
> the "wiki discussion" page? Should we move the guidelines to a
> pagure repo and do it with PRs, is
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:39:35PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> I definitely think there are a few more "tightly defined"
> collections of stuff as Owen describes. However, I am not sure we
> have found them all yet. Something like "system-tools" is definitely
> one of them and there may be a few others
On 07/03/2017 06:53 AM, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:29:29PM +0200, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
However, considering this from a different angle, a LAMP stack module,
for example, might just need to make a certain API/ABI
On 06/29/2017 11:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
To what extent do we want to encourage "collections of stuff" modules?
Numerically, most modules will likely to be designed to be installed as
containers or flatpaks because that's how we
On 06/29/2017 11:27 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
I have an alternate idea too: "collection" type modules would
use arbitrary integer versions starting with 1 and increase only if the
On 06/29/2017 01:40 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:20:15PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
* Such modules MAY additionally have a "latest" stream, which
would be "rolling release" of the latest stable version (as
opposed to master, which corresponds to rawhide and may be
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:29:29PM +0200, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
> > However, considering this from a different angle, a LAMP stack module,
> > for example, might just need to make a certain API/ABI promise and then
> > it could roll for
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 04:07:43PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Each such "collection" module MUST have one or both of the following:
>
> * A "latest" rolling stream (As above, this would be separate from
> "rawhide", as "latest stable", but could update frequently and
> arbitrarily
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:29:29PM +0200, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
> However, considering this from a different angle, a LAMP stack module,
> for example, might just need to make a certain API/ABI promise and then
> it could roll for quite a while. This would be without regard to the
> changes in th
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017, at 08:35 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:25:59PM +0200, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
> > Does this mean that a module built primarilly from a single application
> > does not have a 13 month fixed lifecycle? I hope this is true because,
> > in my mind, one o
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:25:59PM +0200, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
> Does this mean that a module built primarilly from a single application
> does not have a 13 month fixed lifecycle? I hope this is true because,
> in my mind, one of the things a module is promising is that some form of
> API/ABI w
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Okay, so, I decided to get my hands dirty with this to make sure my
> conceptual understanding stays in sync with the reality. And, it turns
> out we really do need a system-tools module. So, I'm going to make
> that. And in doing so, I ran
On 29/06/17 15:49, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 04:07:43PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
...
>>
>> * One or more streams corresponding to "end of life no earlier than",
>> in the format "YYMM". (Or "eolYYMM"? Or "eYYMM"? Or "uYYMM" for
>> 'until'? Or "fYYMM" for 'fedora' —
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:20:15PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > > > * Such modules MAY additionally have a "latest" stream, which
> > > > would be "rolling release" of the latest stable version (as
> > > > opposed to master, which corresponds to rawhide and may be
> > > > unstable).
> > > So
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > > * Modules which correspond primarily to a single application or
> > > versioned software stack (e.g. Apache HTTP 2.4 or Node.js v8) MUST
> > > use a stream label
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> To what extent do we want to encourage "collections of stuff" modules?
>
> Numerically, most modules will likely to be designed to be installed as
> containers or flatpaks because that's how we handle conflicting dependencies.
> If you
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
>> > I have an alternate idea too: "collection" type modules would
>> > use arbitrary integer versions starting with 1 and increase only if the
>> > content undergoes a major swit
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > I have an alternate idea too: "collection" type modules would
> > use arbitrary integer versions starting with 1 and increase only if the
> > content undergoes a major switch. ALL module streams would contain EOL
> > information after
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > * Modules which correspond primarily to a single application or
> > versioned software stack (e.g. Apache HTTP 2.4 or Node.js v8) MUST
> > use a stream label corresponding to the major version of that software
> > (e.g. 2.4 or 8
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 04:07:43PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> So far, easy, I think. But what about modules like mine which are
> collections of stuff? We could give them an arbitrary version and
> increment that. Or, since this module will to follow the same 13-month
> lifecycle of a base Fed
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 04:07:43PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Okay, so, I decided to get my hands dirty with this to make sure my
> conceptual understanding stays in sync with the reality. And, it turns
> out we really do need a system-tools module. So, I'm going to make
> that. And in doing so
Okay, so, I decided to get my hands dirty with this to make sure my
conceptual understanding stays in sync with the reality. And, it turns
out we really do need a system-tools module. So, I'm going to make
that. And in doing so, I ran into something I think is unresolved.
An early decision needed
25 matches
Mail list logo
