On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:42:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Well, yes, but *in context*, the text was specifying the extent of the
> package set it covered. It seems, to me, at least as likely that the
> intent of the text was "the Change will cover all the packages in the
> Server install t
On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 13:27 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:10:16PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > As Fedora stands today, of course, "the Fedora Server repo" means "all
> > > the stuff Fedora packages at all".
> >
> > Um. Does it? I am not entirely sure if this is w
On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 07:54 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:07 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >
> > > I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. However, I
> > > never said we should block the release.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:10:16PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > As Fedora stands today, of course, "the Fedora Server repo" means "all
> > the stuff Fedora packages at all".
> Um. Does it? I am not entirely sure if this is what was meant in
> context, but there *is* a "Fedora Server repo" whic
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:00:33PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Has there yet been any consideration given to *schedule* changes? One
> thing this mail makes abundantly clear is that a lot of work is going
> to be involved in even a minimally viable '1.0' implementation of the
> Modularity conce
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 28 June 2017 at 07:54, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:07 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. H
On 28 June 2017 at 07:54, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:07 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. However, I
>>> never said we should block the release. I said it shoul
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:07 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. However, I
>> never said we should block the release. I said it should work on the
>> architectures it does today. That i
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:07 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. However, I
> never said we should block the release. I said it should work on the
> architectures it does today. That is more than x86_64. We *know* we
> have significant interest f
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 08:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon wrote:
>> > OVERVIEW
>> >
>> >
>> > As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
>> > release, a typical Change P
On 06/27/2017 06:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 14:30 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:55:58PM -0400, langdon wrote:
Apologies, but I was talking about "available in the Fedora Server
repo". Specifically, we have a lofty goal that everything in that
r
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 14:30 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:55:58PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> > Apologies, but I was talking about "available in the Fedora Server
> > repo". Specifically, we have a lofty goal that everything in that
> > repo would have a module wrapped aroun
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 08:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon wrote:
> > OVERVIEW
> >
> >
> > As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
> > release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on
> > capturing the moving p
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 16:55 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > > > Hmmm, so, if I want some random utility (let's say gcal, which I don't
> > > > package, or calc, which I do)
On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 13:44 -0400, langdon wrote:
> OVERVIEW
>
>
> As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
> release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on
> capturing the moving parts and dependencies for the work to successfully
> land. As a re
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:58:04PM +, Langdon White wrote:
> Sorry, meant to write that.. Yes, optional (but cool!)
>
> /me needs to figure out how to capture all these clarifications somewhere
> not-email
Edit them into the change proposal (since it's not approved yet) and
notify Jan that yo
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 10:54 Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:44 AM, langdon wrote:
> > On 06/27/2017 08:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OVERVIEW
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As the modularity work starts to enter Fe
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:44 AM, langdon wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 08:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OVERVIEW
>>>
>>>
>>> As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
>>> release, a typical Change Proposal did n
On 06/27/2017 08:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon wrote:
OVERVIEW
As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on
capturing the moving parts and dependencies for the work
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:32:15PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>> This has been tried by AltLinux, they were using Group tag to organize
>> packages into small repositories and after all they went back for one
>> big repository because of cr
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon wrote:
> OVERVIEW
>
>
> As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
> release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on
> capturing the moving parts and dependencies for the work to successfully
> land. As a resu
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:55:58PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 01:29 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
> >
> > > We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server we
> > > would
> > > try to avoid an "everything else" module and fig
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:32:15PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> This has been tried by AltLinux, they were using Group tag to organize
> packages into small repositories and after all they went back for one
> big repository because of cross-dependencies, questions where to put
> what and probably
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:19:42PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 01:44 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:29:08AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
> > >
> > > > We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 14:30 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:55:58PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> > Apologies, but I was talking about "available in the Fedora Server
> > repo". Specifically, we have a lofty goal that everything i
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:30:20PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> That can be done by:
[...]
Ugh, got distracted and sent before really done. Are there other ways
we're looking at? Which of these are the Modularity and Server WGs
thinking?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:55:58PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> Apologies, but I was talking about "available in the Fedora Server
> repo". Specifically, we have a lofty goal that everything in that
> repo would have a module wrapped around it. We may not get there
> which triggers the choices above.
A
On 06/26/2017 01:44 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:29:08AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server we would
try to avoid an "everything else" module and figure out how to solve
On 26 June 2017 at 13:55, langdon wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 01:29 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
>>
>>> We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server we
>>> would
>>> try to avoid an "everything else" module and figure out how to solve t
On 06/26/2017 01:29 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server we would
try to avoid an "everything else" module and figure out how to solve this
problem more nicely between now and release. We have mult
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:29:08AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
>
> > We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server we would
> > try to avoid an "everything else" module and figure out how to solve this
> > problem more nicely betwee
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:33 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Unrelated question: We will still be making the server repo and
> netinstall so people can install the legacy server setup with rpms, right?
>
>
I don't know if we'll bother creating an actual Fedora Server netinstall,
but we'll certainly still
On 06/26/2017 11:04 AM, Langdon White wrote:
> We talked about this with the server wg and decided for F27 server we would
> try to avoid an "everything else" module and figure out how to solve this
> problem more nicely between now and release. We have multiple options here
> including : generati
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 12:06 Ben Rosser wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> >
> > The modular release is effectively a separate distro.
> >
> > While using single RPMs from traditional Fedora might work in
> > most cases, I wouldn't recommend enabling the entire reposit
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> Creating logical modules would be the best approach here.
> >> Containers are also an option but someone needs to make them, too.
> > So, would a "Random Command-Line Tools" module make sense? Sort of like
> > the old "system-tool
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
>
> The modular release is effectively a separate distro.
>
> While using single RPMs from traditional Fedora might work in
> most cases, I wouldn't recommend enabling the entire repository
> which also provides packages conflicting with (and pos
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
>> > Hmmm, so, if I want some random utility (let's say gcal, which I don't
>> > package, or calc, which I do) on my server, what are my options? Can I
> [...]
>> The modular relea
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > Hmmm, so, if I want some random utility (let's say gcal, which I don't
> > package, or calc, which I do) on my server, what are my options? Can I
[...]
> The modular release is effectively a separate distro.
>
> While using single RP
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:42:39AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:44:43PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> > - Although modularity allows for lifecycle changes, there is no
> > plan for anything besides the normal 13 month lifecycle at this
> > point.
>
> So, this basically giv
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:44:43PM -0400, langdon wrote:
> - Although modularity allows for lifecycle changes, there is no
> plan for anything besides the normal 13 month lifecycle at this
> point.
So, this basically gives until November 2018 to figure out a way to
handle longer lifecycles. :)
OVERVIEW
As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27
release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on
capturing the moving parts and dependencies for the work to successfully
land. As a result, this document attempts to capture, at a high level,
the g
41 matches
Mail list logo
