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

[Bryan Kearney]

On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400,
>    Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging guidelines
>> today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This is not just a noble
>> goal, but also something that pragmatically makes systems better. But,
>> it's
>> also keeping us from having software that people really use in Fedora.
>> Chef
>> and Hadoop are two big examples. This hurts us more than it helps the
>> world.
>> So, in some areas, we need a different approach.
>
> I'm a bit worried about this. We really want bundled libs to eventually
> go away (for any particular bundled lib). This seems like it could
> encourage permanently bundled libs. That is going to make some packages
> conflicting for a very long time. (And the conflicting packages may not
> be providing the same service, so that you'd need to run two instances
> of Fedora to get both sets of services.)


With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More 
smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service?

-- bk