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 communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept
> may be useful and desirable. Making Fedora a first class OS for
> languages where rpm packaging doesn't make sense is great!
One thing I find strange is that while by some measurements
the rings effort would be a major change, by others it seems to
be a minor tweak of what exists today.
I haven't seen for example any evaluation or discussion of
the apparent assumption that Ring 0 will be binary RPM packages,
maintained how they always have been.
I haven't seen much discussion of "should ring 0 be RPMs".
To give a random contrast, look at OpenEmbedded:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Main_Page
Or maybe Snappy?
http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/snappy
--
Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality.
xmpp: zdzichubg(a)chrome.pl -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen