Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:31:04PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > >5. Ring membership is at the source package level, not the binary
> > >package.  If one source package's binary/noarch sub-package is in ring
> > >0, all sub-packages are in ring 0.
> 
> Hmmmm. Are we sure about that? That means that one can't, for example,
> subpackage an optional feature with huge dependencies (or cascading
> explosion of dependencies) to keep them from being pulled into Ring 0.
> 
> If this is the case, are we open to having *separate* Ring 1 packages
> built from the same source but with different options?

Yeah.  E.g. it would really surprise me if you could keep libgcc
or libstdc++ packages out of Ring 0.  But do you want because of that
all the other subpackages of gcc (almost 50) with all their dependencies.

	Jakub