Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Jan 23 22:16:23 UTC 2014


quoting simplified: >>> is Tom Hughes, >> is me, > is Josh. Restored
part of Tom's original context.

>> > The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something 
>> > that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely irrelevant for 
>> > anybody other than a new user. When I bring a new machine up I just want 
>> > to get a base OS on and access to the package repository and what 
>> > packages are installed by default doesn't really bother me.

> > > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
> > > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
> > > single source and mechanism for installing packages.

> > If these plans go ahead, we will have multiple official/blessed methods
> > for deploying software on Fedora, potentially with different policies
> > about what software they can include and how that software should be
> > arranged, how dependencies should be handled, and all the rest of it.
> > Some of these methods will be shared between products, and some will
> > either only exist in certain products, or at least be clearly associated
> > with and 'owned' by those products.
> 
> Also possibly correct.  However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we
> know them today from still existing, with still the same quality.

Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
interpretation of the discussions so far - still invalidate the
assumptions he is currently making: he can no longer assume that all he
basically has to worry about is getting 'Fedora' installed somehow and
he can then install whatever he likes. Broadly stated, it will no longer
be valid to conceive of Fedora as a large package repository with some
installation methods attached to it, whereas currently that's a pretty
reasonable conceptual framework that I believe many people (not just
Tom) employ.

In other words, Tom was really correct. ;)

>   As
> far as I'm aware, the products are still planning on being built from
> packages provided by the Fedora project, from the Fedora buildsystem.
> 
> So yes, there may very well be different options.  That doesn't mean
> they can't also be the same if you choose not to use those different
> things.

Is that going to be a reasonably sustainable approach, though? It's at
least possible that it won't. What if the Desktop 'product' starts
caring much about shipping commonly-used desktop applications as 'app
bundles' rather than packages? What if the Server 'product' implements
Wordpress as a container image rather than a package?

>   I understand your concern and it's something worth watching,
> but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that things will be
> horrible or users will be forced to give up RPMs and repos.
> 
> josh

I certainly agree that it's not a foregone conclusion, and I don't think
I suggested it was, but your initial email seemed to more or less
entirely dismiss the possibility, and I don't think that's warranted.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net




More information about the devel mailing list