-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/19/2013 10:12 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 14:56 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> On 11/19/2013 02:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> Why do we need to have different bases per product ?
> Because the core needs to be on different release cycle
>> What do people expect to be different between the various
>> 'bases' ?
> Because the requirements are different between serverWG and
> workstationWG so divergance is unavoidable.
> And what is the purpose of this effort if these things do not
Configuration and management tools mostly.
> What would be the difference of what we have now compared to
> fedora next?
That you have a coherent set of configuration and management tools
that are server oriented. It's not like we need to diverge on the
packages, but it would be a side effect of every one going their
All Linux distribution ship the same packages, but most
incompatibilities come from naming and versions, I do not see as a
good thing to have internal divergence in Fedora. It would be
especially taxing for those packages that need to go in multiple
products if they had to be rebuilt in all of them because
underlying packages slightly differ.
If there are packages that belong in multiple products, I'd recommend
that those be in the core/FOS definition. I think we can probably talk
about allowing individual products to elect to leave things OUT (such
as Fedora Cloud not carrying all the drivers), but if multiple
products all need e.g. openssh, I think we should assert that they
should not fork unless it's thoroughly unavoidable. In other words, if
more than one product needs to rely on something, in my opinion that
belongs in the Base WG definition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----