On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/10/2015 08:38 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Major Hayden <major(a)mhtx.net>
> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 05:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> Lastly, I want to open a new topic: Should the Server SIG be
>>> responsible for the "minimal" environment group in comps.xml?
>>> Technically, it is available on the Server install media, so we
>>> should decide if that makes sense for us to own in an official
>>> capacity. Many people already assume that we do, but as of
>>> right now, minimal installs report themselves as
>>> non-productized installations.
>>
>> As someone who uses the minimal environment quite regularly, this
>> is definitely something I'm interested to discuss. ;)
>
> Isn't this something that we've repeatedly asked the Base WG to
> define and maintain?
That is and always has been unclear. I had a conversation with some of
the Base WG during the systemd conference last week and they weren't
sure if that was their duty either.
My understanding of the division is that it's the Edition SIGs
responsibility to be defining actual deliverable artifacts (which in
Yes, for _their_ Edition. Not as a common denominator.
my mind means any installable env group shipped on our media). The
Base WG's responsibility is to define the platform atop which the
artifacts can be built.
Where is that definition? Or more succinctly, if that definition is
whatever is on the wiki page, what purpose is the Base WG serving
today as it seems to be "done" or otherwise stalled.
I don't (personally) think that the Base WG output should
necessarily
be installable or even self-hosting; I think it should be a definition
of what constitutes the minimal set of functionality for which we are
willing to call something "Fedora". (Note, I intentionally choose the
term "functionality" and not "packages", because I think we also
need
to consider the possibility that reorganization of the output of
packages may be necessary to produce a sensible view of this base
platform.
I'm not comfortable with the minimal functional install being the
responsibility of any of the editions, particularly not Server or
Workstation. Cloud is arguably the most minimal of the editions.
However, when you start talking about _function_, what is minimal is
completely unclear from one Edition to another.
That is not to say that Server hasn't done a good job as the de facto
maintainer of this. I would simply prefer to non-Edition entity to be
responsible for the definition and curation of minimal function.
Perhaps Env & Stacks if not Base.
josh