Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 09/02/2015 12:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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.

Right, so there are two avenues that spring to mind:

1.  Do we split packages up into separate builds to isolate 
subpackages?  This sounds pretty ugly.  A maintainer would have to 
keep them manually in sync.  A gcc-ring0 and a gcc-ring1 source rpm?

2.  Ring 0 can include 2 separate composes: The required subpackage 
pieces go into one repository that does pass repoclosure, the 
remaining subpackages go into a second repository with less strict 
requirements.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com