[Base] Base Design WG agenda meeting 1st June 2015 14:15 UTC on #fedora-meeting-2

[Harald Hoyer]

*IMPORTANT*: #fedora-meeting-2 ... I repeat: *two*

Agenda:
 - Interview candidates for new memberships
 - Optionally accept new members
 - Open Floor

Please add items by replying to this mail.

[Harald Hoyer]

On 01.06.2015 10:50, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>  *IMPORTANT*: #fedora-meeting-2 ... I repeat: *two*
>  
>  Agenda:
>   - Interview candidates for new memberships
>   - Optionally accept new members
>   - Open Floor
>  
>  Please add items by replying to this mail.
>  
>   
Minutes:
<http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-06-01/fedora_base_...

Minutes (text):
<http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-06-01/fedora_base_...

Log:
<http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-06-01/fedora_base_...

[Václav Pavlín]

Hi guys,

I am sorry I missed the meeting yesterday - I had a training I 
completely forgot about, but anyway, my comments to the topic(s) follow:

Gathering of an information for the modularization proposal should 
surely be a common effort of e&s and Base - as both WGs has 
edditions/spins as their users

 From my pov Base should own intersection of the package set from (all?) 
editions/spins/WGs. Thus if we agree on using scl for our 
modularization, then yes, it should be in Base's hands to add it the 
core pkg set. But also as jreznik said, we screwed up in generating 
requirements for such minimal/common package set:). On the other hand 
whatever is optional and not THE ONE technology we choose to support 
should be probably in hands of e&s so that we don't add bloat to base 
system.

14:47:53 <langdon> msekleta, i guess i am making the argument that if 
e&s says "this is how we do x, which relies on y" then e&s needs to work

with base to get y included in base for use by the editions (or other 
WGs in general)

If it is agreed upon that all editions will benefit from that "x and y", 
then yes. But let's imagine Workstation decides to use xdg-apps and 
server decides to use Docker for similar use cases - how do e&s or Base 
get involved in here?

That's my 2c:)

Cheers,
Vašek

On 1.6.2015 17:13, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>  On 01.06.2015 10:50, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > *IMPORTANT*: #fedora-meeting-2 ... I repeat: *two*
> >
> > Agenda:
> >   - Interview candidates for new memberships
> >   - Optionally accept new members
> >   - Open Floor
> >
> > Please add items by replying to this mail.
> >
> >
>  Minutes:
>
> <http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-06-01/fedora_base_...
>
>  Minutes (text):
>
> <http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-06-01/fedora_base_...
>
>  Log:
>
> <http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-06-01/fedora_base_...
>
>  

-- 

Lead Infrastructure Engineer
Developer Experience
Brno, Czech Republic
Phone: [phone]

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Václav Pavlín <vpavlin(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi guys,
>
>  I am sorry I missed the meeting yesterday - I had a training I completely
>  forgot about, but anyway, my comments to the topic(s) follow:
>
>  Gathering of an information for the modularization proposal should surely be
>  a common effort of e&s and Base - as both WGs has edditions/spins as their
>  users
>
>  From my pov Base should own intersection of the package set from (all?)
>  editions/spins/WGs. Thus if we agree on using scl for our modularization,
>  then yes, it should be in Base's hands to add it the core pkg set. But also
>  as jreznik said, we screwed up in generating requirements for such
>  minimal/common package set:). On the other hand whatever is optional and not
>  THE ONE technology we choose to support should be probably in hands of e&s
>  so that we don't add bloat to base system.
>
>  14:47:53 <langdon> msekleta, i guess i am making the argument that if e&s
>  says "this is how we do x, which relies on y" then e&s needs to work with
>  base to get y included in base for use by the editions (or other WGs in
>  general)
>
>  If it is agreed upon that all editions will benefit from that "x and y",
>  then yes. But let's imagine Workstation decides to use xdg-apps and server
>  decides to use Docker for similar use cases - how do e&s or Base get
>  involved in here? 
By providing a common underlying OS platform layer, whether it be as a
set of packages and comps groups, or an Atomic base image.  E&S can
further aid this by providing additional layers that help the WGs
provide API compatibility through scl or whatever other mechanism.

Your question is a good one, but xdg-apps and docker are pretty high
on the layer stack.  They are only one layer down from end user
developer/app, so there are lots of things that they need to work
well.

Maybe Langdon can draw some awesome ascii art to illustrate the layers
he's thinking about.  I would try, but gmail would mess it up.

josh