Fedora Server Use Cases Prioritization

[Simo Sorce]

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 16:19 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> I think the "deploy and configure" aspect for specific server uses
> >> (e.g. how to get from an application package to an installed and
> >> running database and web server) would be handled by Server and Cloud
> >> products; what we would like to get from software collections or
> >> something similar is a way to _run_ an application (e.g. have all
> >> dependencies available, without focusing on the web server in
> >> particular), in a way that can be shipped within the Server product.
> >>       Mirek
> >>
> > I'd say it's working fine now. If you think it's not true, then you have to
> > go into more detail.
> 
> At this very moment, I'm holding off upgrading to F20 because my Rails
> application (set up to run against the system-wide RPMs) will no
> longer work.

We had to advise FreeIPA users to hold the same way at GA, but we fixed
the breakage and gave the green light now.

> Now I'm not saying that the sky is falling, or that this must
> necessarily be solved by having RPMs of everything within Fedora;
> however if we want Server to allow deploying "e.g. Rails applications"
> and if I'm allowed to interpret that as "applications using e.g. Rails
> without having been ported to the very last version", we need a
> reasonably supportable mechanism that doesn't expose our users to
> unmanageable security vulnerabilities.

This is Collections territory though ...

> For all I know, perhaps "just use upstream gems" might be an
> acceptable solution...  I'm not sure how I'd feel about requiring an
> explicitly-out-of-Fedora COPR repo.
> 
> In any case, do need to agree on an approach.


ack

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