RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Lots of interesting things here.  But I just had a few things that triggered
off of Kevin's message so:

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:38:54 -0400
> Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
> > Some approaches may even move beyond RPM packaging. This can mean
> > focusing on "language native" package formats like Jars, Gems, and
> > Eggs; or it can mean moving to a Git-based distribution model for
> > some parts of the distro.
> 
> Person with one package management system always knows whats
> installed. Person with 5 is never sure. 
>  
When I was at PyCon, I talked to several admins and admin-developers who
really, really wanted to be able to get upstream packages into rpms and were
looking for a way to get separate environments from what was on the system
that used rpm as the deployment format.  I asked them why not use
virtualenvs and eggs for both of these things instead.  Their reasons seemed
to basically fall along the same lines as above.  They had tools, policy,
and experience to support deploying, querying, validating, replicating rpm
installs of software.  if they used eggs they would need to create a second,
parallel stack of tools, policy, and experience to support changes to the
egg-based software that was separate from the one that supported their local
changes to the OS.


> > 
> >   Many Ways!
> >   ---
> >   * Software Collections
> >   * Stacks 2.0
> >   * OpenShift Cartridges
> >   * Fedora Formulas
> >   * Traditional Packaging
> > 
> > There are many different approaches people are working on right now.
> > I don't know which will ultimately be best. We want to enable the
> > experimentation, so we can find what succeeds. Some of these things
> > aren't beautiful, but if we can invite them in anyway, they can
> > iterate towards perfection.
> 
> I like the idea, but I worry about calling all these things "Fedora"
> before they are really worthy of it, or before we know the scope of
> them. I like the idea of providing some place or resources as we can
> for them and let them hash out if they can come up with a
> supportable/sustainable model, then they could be considered for moving
> further into the Fedora ecosystem. 
>
What about branding it in a similar manner as EPEL?  It's a Fedora Project
but it's not the Fedora Distribution?  I suppose that Fedora Core + Fedora
Commons would continue to be the Fedora Distribution and Rings 2+ would be
something else.  If we're going back to the old days to find names for
these things, I'd suggest Fedora Contrib|Net might be a good match ;-)

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130722/144fc490/attachment.sig>