Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 09/02/2015 12:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> 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 ...

I answered- did you miss it?

>
> 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
>
>


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