Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Tomasz Torcz]

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 at chrome.pl                -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen