On 10/28/2013 01:48 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 13:32 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> On 10/28/2013 12:55 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> == My initial thoughts ==
>> I am open to counter-arguments, naturally.
> I'm just going straight to the overlapping issues we have between the
> WG's as in we need to establish the fundamental approach of which
> applications belong to our group.
> Basically where I stand any application that runs daemon/service as in
> it's an application (or set of applications) that runs in the background
> waiting to be used, or carrying out essential tasks on an pyshical/vm or
> in container or in other words basically it's an systemd/upstart/sysv
> unit/service or an container that can be started and enable with the
> systemd and service commands and is not part of the desktop/graphical
> target ( such as gdm.service which thus makes it part of the workstation
> group ), as well is not part of the base/coreOS ( like device mapper etc
> ) it belongs within the server WG.
I tentatively agree, although I guess there may be desktop-oriented
daemons we may not care about. Say a desktop-oriented backup daemon,
that is sort of single user or anyway ill-suited for a multi-user
You never deploy a desktop on a server so I would say we would limit
this to a base/coreOS a set of administrative tools + a single
application and or a application stack and the way we would deliver the
products would be something that we would limit to netinstall + ks or
something that integrades well with provisioning tools