Lot of different things here! Answering in no particular order:
* Yes, merging the two efforts would be great. We need to figure out a
minimal set of things that we need to change in Fedora infrastructure
to make the atomic workstation builds there a reasonable development
target. Colin and I had an off-line conversation about this, and I'll
send mail separately to summarize.
* Having CI targeted at the Atomic Workstation builds is a very
important part of that.
* We definitely should promote OpenShift as a cool and Fedora-aligned
way of doing development of server applications and make it easy as
possible to get going. Shipping the necessary bits to run openshift out
of the box on Fedora Atomic Workstation seems like a good idea to me.
* I don't think OpenShift is a *universal* development solution - if
you want to 'pip install' a few packages and then try things out on the
command line, it's extremely heavy weight, and we should be looking for
good solutions for lightweight pet containers - whether an evolution of
my PurpleEgg idea or something else.
Thanks for pushing this forward, Colin!
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 11:21 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hey, so I'd like to keep pushing forward on
> (Which is related to:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/WorkstationOstree )
> I actually just revamped the first page completely. One
> thing I'd like to propose that's new is that we focus a lot on `oc
> cluster up`
> as a local developer model for *server* applications. I just
> installed it by default:
> Now let's back up; the current state is we
> have two efforts, one in:
> which lives in CentOS CI currently, and
> which is in Fedora, but not as actively maintained.
> I'd like to migrate my work into Fedora. This content should be
> based on Fedora 25, potentially with some overrides.
> We should integrate with the existing Fedora tools, such as
> for installer testing. I'd also like this content to be GPG signed
> (and ideally transport protected) the same way other content
> is. But like Atomic Host we should have both a more agile *and*
> slower release
> process that's decoupled from the 6months base/daily-bodhi model
> which I don't really think makes sense. Basically we'd aim for
> to the core at most once a week (modulo async errata). The auto-
> generated flatpaks though
> would be daily or faster potentially. We need the ability to do
> Firefox security errata quickly.
> In the short or potentially medium term, this would be a sidecar
> to the Workstation which is based on the "big bag of packages" model.
> There is an existing base of people who are interested in this, and I
> with some minimal CI/integration and maintenance we can
> produce something that's very different from the package bag,
> and has some powerful advantages, but also without distracting
> too much from it.
> A major milestone for this will be removing firefox from the base
> tree, and relying on an autogenerated flatpak.
> This email was sent from atomic-ws btw; I do find it practical
> today for everyday use, but as you can see I've layered some
> things like keepassx that aren't flatpak'd yet:
> ● atomic-ws:atomicws/fedora/x86_64/continuous
> Version: 25.2017.34 (2017-02-15 20:26:05)
> OSName: fedora
> Packages: ansible emacs fuse-sshfs gdb gimp keepassx krb5-
> workstation libgit2 libvirt opensc pcsc-lite-ccid powerline strace
> vagrant-hostmanager vagrant-libvirt vagrant-sshfs virt-manager xchat
> xsel ykclient ykpers
> Unlocked: development
> desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org