[Base] Proposal for buildrequires cleanup janitorial initiative

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Tue Jan 7 20:01:15 UTC 2014


Miloslav Trma─Ź (mitr at volny.cz) said: 
> >> During last weeks Base WG discussion about package set and self hosting
> >> of Base we came to a point where especially the self hosting of Base
> >> would currently look absurd as we'd require more than 2000 components to
> >> do so.
> >
> > Once you reduce the size of this set, do you forsee actually *enforcing*
> > this in some way?  For example, by having separate package repositories?
> >
> > If not, what's the point of this initiative?
> 
> Actually, even more generally - why a self-hosting Base at all?  It
> would clearly be absurd for the kernel to be self-hosting, and clearly
> we want "the Fedora universe" to be self-hosting.  Why is it
> worthwhile to have Base self-hosting?

Well, if we want 'the Fedora universe' to be self-hosting, where should
the compiler portion that implements the bottom layer of that live?

If it doesn't make sense in Cloud (definitely not), Server (maybe), or
Workstation (maybe)... then that either leaves Base, or a world where you're
building Base (and WS, and Server, and Cloud) using tools from 'the
universe' that itself is trying to build on Base. 

e.g., if base defines & standardizes on the minimal set of build packages,
that Server/WS/Cloud can then use to build themselves (or selectively
override), and the universe can then use (or selectively override), it
creates a clean heirarchy.

If the build environment instead lives in the Universe, and all of Base, and
Server/WS/Cloud use it... that makes Fedora still (in some respects) one big
package repo, and the products more like spins than actual separate products.

Whether the first of these is actually *doable* cleanly is still up in the
air, but I think that's some of the idea behind it.

Bill


More information about the devel mailing list