Discussion of Fedora Server use-cases

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Oct 28 15:32:14 UTC 2013

Hash: SHA1

On 10/28/2013 11:25 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 03:13 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> Jóhann, I always welcome your input, but stop using phrases like
>> "pure nonsense".
>> We are here to discuss technical details, you may not agree with 
>> someone, in which case an explanation of why you do not agree is 
>> important. But saying something is "pure nonsense" is not an
>> explanation and is not useful to convey your position.
> Our transitioning process needs to be able to cover 500+
> applications ( or in other words be as generic as possible ) or so,
> so it obviously cannot depend on the existence of web fronted
> otherwise we would be excluding 99% of those server applications.

I'm not sure I agree with "cover 500+ applications". I'm not convinced
(yet) that our responsibility is to be shipping the full set of server
applications currently available in the greater Fedora universe.

I'd like for us to be focusing on a *platform* and a set of standard,
visible APIs and working with the Base Design and Environments/Stacks
 groups to have service packages treated similarly to "apps" in other
operating systems. We ourselves don't necessarily need to do all of
the porting to accommodate this (though we will probably want to
select a group of high-value servers that we use as examples, such as
Apache HTTPD and BIND).

Also, I'd like for us to try to manage this separation so that we can
allow our consumers to pick and choose which server they actually
want, rather than necessarily the freshest upstream bits. Those fresh
copies *must* be available (and probably the default if not otherwise
specified), but it would be REALLY nice to be able to hang onto
MyServer 2.4 after 3.0 comes out if your other applications aren't
ready for it.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the server mailing list