Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part II, "What's Happening?")

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/30/2014 11:00 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:11:58PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> I promised a while ago that I would provide a text version of my
>>> talk at DevConf, for people who couldn't make it and because
>>> sitting through a video of me standing up there going on and on
>>> doesn't really make for good followup discussion.
>>>
>>> I posted a link to the first part last week:
>>>
>>> <http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-i-why/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> and now, Part II:
>>>
>>> <http://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-present-and-future-a-fedora-next-2014-update-part-ii-whats-happening/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> And as I said last week, I will take questions, comments, complaints, in any
>>> media including replies here, on the article, on the social
>>> media, or at any bar or coffee shop within walking distance of
>>> Boston's MBTA.
>>
>> So first I'll say these are interesting articles, and I encourage
>> people to read them.
>>
>> I work better when I see some examples of what this would mean in
>> practice.  Under Fedora.next, how & where would you see the
>> following being packaged?
>>
>> - libvirt
>>
>> Big, with lots and lots of big dependencies, but for
>> virtualization it's pretty much the definition of a core, stable
>> API.
>>
>
> libvirt is one of those pieces that we need to settle on its
> positioning. At the absolute minimum, the Fedora Server will almost
> certainly declare it part of our guaranteed API. Given its
> wide-ranging utility, I'd also like to see it as part of the Base
> Design (which means that it is assumed to be a guaranteed API
> available to all Products).

Workstation will require this too.  Having it be in Base is a good idea.

josh