On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 20:21 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> FOS: Analagous to "core" from traditional Fedora. Should essentially
> contain the absolute minimal set of functionality necessary to install
> the bits, get a shell and install software on a running machine. This
> is what he expects as output from the Base WG.
Is this what BaseWG had in mind ?
I suspect they called it BaseWG because they intend to create a base,
not a core image.
Yeah. Things like the Python or Ruby stack or chrony or all the
dependencies of anaconda don't belong into "core" but should be shared
> FOSSP: Analagous to "base" from traditional Fedora.
This should be the
> platform delivered by the Fedora Server. It should provide all of the
> foundational pieces necessary to support the deployment of the
> supported roles.
Why do we need to have different bases per product ?
What do people expect to be different between the various 'bases' ?
We do kind of need a "Server shared infrastructure", though - perhaps
a puppet client, monitoring agent, something providing the external
API interface for the Server, and the like. These should, though, be
mostly packages unique to Server (or Server+Cloud?), not different
between Server and other products.