[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:13:23 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On 02/17/2015 05:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:39:48PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>> Why not to create a new repository with reduced policy as
> >>> Stephen proposed with the one-way dependency rule (between current
> >>> Fedora and the new easy-for-beginners repository)?
> >> Because this would establish a 2-class society, with double
> >> standards standards and so on.
> >
> > If the distinction were drawn based on _who_ rather than _what and
> > why_, it would. (And that was fundamentally the problem with the old
> > Core vs. Extras.) But no one is proposing a _society_-based distinction
> > — instead, a _technical_ one.
> 
> I know and understand this, but I expect the outcome to be the same:
> 
> Ring 0 == Red Hat
> Ring 1 == The Red Hat business/RHEL-irrelevant parts
> 
> In other words, on the techicall level I do not see any difference to 
> CentOS+RHEL and to Core+Extras
> 
> On the political and social level, .... it raises questions going far 
> beyond these consideration

I wonder why it has become silent in this thread already?
Is there another place where those "ideas" get discussed?

  | https://twitter.com/Worldcleaver/status/565957125600321538
  |
  | Stephen Gallagher ‏@Worldcleaver
  |
  | Wherein I kick the hornets' nest again:
  | https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/207657.html
  | … (Proposal to relax Fedora packaging requirements in some cases)