On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 14:24 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 13:42 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I think it's okay for drafts / initial versions to look like this, and then
> we can eventually collapse parts down to "#include base" or "#include
foo
> from base" / "include base except bar".
So, my view on this is that you can't specify a product 'with the core
missing'. We have to write up how we want it all to work, from the
kernel up. The other product WGs should do the same. And if the base WG
managed to extract a common core out of that, more power to them.
But I don't think we can say:
'Our product is going to work like this ...
and it is going to have these characteristics ...
and it is going to be built on top of this unknown core that
we have very little influence over or insight into how it works.'
Sure, as I said, absolutely the products have to have considerable input
into the Base design. It was purely a procedural point as to how exactly
would be the best way to go about doing that. I wasn't suggesting that
Base should go out and design the base system in a vacuum, and then the
products just have to put up with what they come up with.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net