On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/28/2013 11:25 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Our transitioning process needs to be able to cover 500+
> applications ( or in other words be as generic as possible ) or so,
> so it obviously cannot depend on the existence of web fronted
> otherwise we would be excluding 99% of those server applications.
I'm not sure I agree with "cover 500+ applications". I'm not convinced
(yet) that our responsibility is to be shipping the full set of server
applications currently available in the greater Fedora universe.
I'd like for us to be focusing on a *platform* and a set of standard,
visible APIs and working with the Base Design and Environments/Stacks
groups to have service packages treated similarly to "apps" in other
operating systems. We ourselves don't necessarily need to do all of
the porting to accommodate this (though we will probably want to
select a group of high-value servers that we use as examples, such as
Apache HTTPD and BIND).
I generally agree - though I'd focus more on getting the "high-value
servers" working well than on calling ourselves a "platform" - it's
far too easy to make a platform that doesn't "work" without noticing
when there are no major users of the platform.
Also, I'd like for us to try to manage this separation so that we
allow our consumers to pick and choose which server they actually
want, rather than necessarily the freshest upstream bits.
For the "high-value" servers (which provide external functionality,
not an application API), I strongly disagree. We should be managing
the transitions (no functionality dropped, all configuration migrated)
so that the user will never want to use the older version.
For APIs / runtimes, yes, we have no choice but to provide the older
versions when the upstreams make ABI-incompatible changes.