Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Simo Sorce]

On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 11:59:55AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > Re-sending this with a better title so people might read it ;-)
> 
> Yes, thanks -- I admit to having skimmed over it in my mail-catchup
> attempt.
> 
> > >especially how the rings interact.  As a side note, everyone agreed
> > >the word "rings" breaks down the further you get away from the center,
> > >but nobody has come up with something better yet (Venns? Blobs?
> > >Zones?).
> 
> If people aren't gonna want to rename Rawhide to Bikeshed, then maybe
> *this* could be called that. :)
> 
> > >Right now the Fedora distribution is 1 ring, let's call it ring 1. The
> > >distribution contains an operating system and numerous applications
> > >that run on that operating system.  When we talk about defining ring 0
> > >we're really talking about distinguishing between the operating system
> > >and the applications that run on top of it.
> 
> Speaking of bikesheds... we've traditionally defined the Fedora
> operating system as *the whole thing*, so now calling a subset of that
> the OS gives plenty of room for quibbling. I'm hoping to forestall that
> by saying that regardless of that, we all know what you mean here. That
> may be optimistic.
> 
> 
> > >We want to go from this:
> > >Ring 1: The Fedora Distribution
> > >To this:
> > >
> > >The Fedora Distribution:
> > >Ring 0: The Linux Operating System
> > >Ring 1: The Applications and Stacks
> > >
> > >It seems quite modest, but working through the details on what this
> > >means is hard.  What is an operating system in the Linux context? Ring
> > >0 will likely have the strictest set of policies of all the rings, so
> > >we want to keep it as small as possible, but it is more than a minimal
> > >install.  These are the traits of rings in general and ring 0 in
> > >particular as I see it:
> > >
> > >1. Ring 0 is a repository of rpm packages built in koji.
> > >
> > >2. Ring 0 contains, but is not limited to, the minimal install of
> > >packages to go from Power On to a login prompt.
> 
> In my conception, the "is limited to" set was Ring 0, and the thing you
> are calling Ring 0 was Ring 1, and then Envs and Stacks was Ring 2. I
> can live with ajusting things; just noting. For the rest of this
> message I will use your levels.
> 
> > >3. Ring 0 passes repoclosure on its own (Packages listed as hard
> > >"Requires" in a ring 0 spec file are themselves are implicitly ring 0).
> 
> *nod*
> 
> > >4. Ring 0 is not self hosting.  Packages listed in "BuildRequires" do
> > >not need to be members of Ring 1.  This isn't ideal, but it's a
> > >practical consideration.
> 
> When you say Ring 1 here, you mean Ring 0, right?
> 
> 
> > >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?

This is what I replied to the original mail too, nobody answered ...

Simo.

> 
> > >6. Ring 0 contains the minimal libraries that define the OS API/ABI,
> > >such as glibc.  This probably happens implicitly by #3, repoclosure.
> > >
> > >7. Ring 0 contains the tools needed to update existing packages and
> > >install new packages.
> 
> At the DNF level or at the Yum level?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Miller
> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
> Fedora Project Leader


-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York