On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So instead of the perenial "let's drop rpm and use upstream incomplete
> systems"
You might note I didn't say that.
> I'd like to see the people working in those language communities
> work at adding the missing bits to those upstream
My apologies if you felt i misquoted you, i didn't intend that.
I do plenty of SaaS deployments at $DAYJOB, and i can easily pack hundreds
to thousands // running containers on a single machine.
Remember that Fedora is on the innovative side of the distro spectrum, yes
vhost is the present, but co
Am 14.01.2014 11:53, schrieb H. Guémar:
>> only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
>> already virtualized infrastructures
>
> Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation (and
> i can't wait docker/selinux
> integration for more secur
> only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
already virtualized infrastructures
Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation
(and i can't wait docker/selinux integration for more security), the FS
layered approach allows to save spaces.
Yea
Am 14.01.2014 10:50, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
> Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>>> Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
>>> looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 18:21, Colin Walters a écrit :
> Many upstream build/deployment systems have substantial portions of the
> metadata (BuildRequires/Requires) that RPM needs, it just needs to be
> manually maintained/duplicated in the spec.
And they are usually missing substancial portions
Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
>
> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
>> looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
>> packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 01:37, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> > Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have
>> you
>> > looked at how much PHP stuff there is out ther
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 08:39 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 04:39:12PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You're preaching to the choir. But if in practice people really don't
> > deploy things via the distribution packages, it doesn't matter how
> > awesomely secure the distr
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So to bring it to the context of Fedora.next - if some of the
> 'Fedora.next' products want to have the capability to deploy 'stable',
> i.e. bundled, stacks, then I think they should be 'allowed' to do so (in
> the sense that we can't really stop them), but the mechanisms
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 04:39:12PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> You're preaching to the choir. But if in practice people really don't
> deploy things via the distribution packages, it doesn't matter how
> awesomely secure the distribution packages are. Something that you're
> not using is never
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 20:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:39:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 18:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > > So, like Matthew Miller, I think we cannot possibly punt on this issue,
> > > but
> > > I totally DISAGREE wit
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> > Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
> > looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
> > packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you kn
On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Alek Paunov wrote:
>
> Once we apply FS snapshotting, combined with the SCC NTHs above, there
> are at least two appealing use-cases:
>
> - reusing one base e.g. F20 server container image for both the host and
> the incompatible containers (e.g. when one applicat
On 12.01.2014 22:34, Alek Paunov wrote:
- sccd-web: WebUI exposing full functionality, alternatively Cockpit
(OpenLMI WebUI) extension.
...
- NTH: SCC local state inheritance between instances
Fedora Social: Almost every developer or sysadmins like to demonstrate
how clean and clever is
On 12.01.2014 22:34, Alek Paunov wrote:
[*] Crucial aspect of any sophisticated data management system is the
data query and manipulation language. Unfortunately the choices are
rather limited - Imperative approaches (recently resurrected by some
NoSQL DBs) are weak and error prone
On 12.01.2014 22:34, Alek Paunov wrote:
So, finally on that road we have:
...
- NTH: remote SCC DB for the instance,
- NTH: SCC local state for multiple instances (e.g. deployment nodes or
local containers) kept in the same SCC DB
- NTH: SCC local state inheritance between instances
A
On 10.01.2014 21:12, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:58:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
So the question becomes, what is it appropriate for a distribution to do
in this situation? My personal opinion is that what's appropriate for a
distribution to do is also, happily, what's
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:39:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 18:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > So, like Matthew Miller, I think we cannot possibly punt on this issue, but
> > I totally DISAGREE with his proposed solution of endorsing those bundling
> > systems offi
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
> looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
> packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know anyone who deploys
> Wordpress plugins via distribution packag
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 18:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
> > swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
> > ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for s
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
> swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
> ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for such
> ecosystems would simply be to make sure their distributio
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I say this as someone who's spent the last
> couple of weeks whacking on a PHPland stack (Owncloud) with a wrench to
> achieve precisely that.
For what it's worth, I read over the GitHub tickets, I think you're
headed in the right direction
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:58:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So the question becomes, what is it appropriate for a distribution to do
> in this situation? My personal opinion is that what's appropriate for a
> distribution to do is also, happily, what's easiest for a distribution
> to do: pun
tor 2014-01-09 klockan 20:30 -0800 skrev Andrew Lutomirski:
> It would be nice, at least, if there was a clean way for these stacks
> to be tracked and, if needed, uninstalled. Some of these things
> install into /usr, which is a giant mess. (Pip, the one I use the
> most, doesn't do that IIRC,
I'm sorry, but you're forgetting one major thing.
Sure there are lots of developers that ignore best practices. There is
nothing new. But there is also a lot of users that do understand best
practices and do want the apps packaged in a clean way.
The apps are not packaged because the developers
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>> > In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
>> > with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
>> > updat
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 19:58 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
> swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
> ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for such
> ecosystems would simp
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> > In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
> > with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
> > update/upgrade and delete the old container or in case of Gnome wit
On 12/19/2013 05:33 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:52 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years
ago?
Standard C++ does not specify an ABI. Compilers get to handle that
themselves.
We adhere to the Itanium C++ ABI. I
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:52 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years
>> ago?
>
> Standard C++ does not specify an ABI. Compilers get to handle that
> themselves.
>
Correct (which c
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years ago?
>
> The latest C++ ABI change was with g++ 3.4 (April 18, 2004). g++ 4.0 kept
> the 3.4 ABI and so did all 4.x releases.
He's probably talking abo
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years ago?
The latest C++ ABI change was with g++ 3.4 (April 18, 2004). g++ 4.0 kept
the 3.4 ABI and so did all 4.x releases.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://adm
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
> with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
> update/upgrade and delete the old container or in case of Gnome with a
> new "App image" If I understood Alexander correctly at th
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:52 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Didn't we have a mass rebuild due to a C++ ABI change 1 or 2 years
> ago?
Standard C++ does not specify an ABI. Compilers get to handle that
themselves.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing
On fim 19.des 2013 14:40, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it with a
new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the update/upgrade and
delete the old container or i
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> You can, for example, use C++, which is a stable standard (a new version was
> published 2 years ago, but almost all C++98 code compiles unchanged as
> C++11), and Qt, which keeps a stable API and ABI throughout a major version
> (the interval
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it with a
> new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the update/upgrade and
> delete the old container or in case of Gnome with a new "App image" If I
>
Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) said:
> > Really, this should be solved in upstream projects so you can expect a
> > stable library API across distribution boundaries. Doing it in Fedora is
> > not actually solving the problem.
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Is it really upstream causin
On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Lars Seipel wrote:
>
> But just freezing libraries at some random version essentially creates a
> fork which has to be maintained inside Fedora. Who is going to develop
> programs specifically for Fedora? Most developers are targeting the
> broader GNU/Linux type of
On mið 18.des 2013 16:17, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Containers are primarily an isolation mechanism; not a way to install,
update or deploy software.
Right
"Just use containers" shifts the problem
to "how do I update the container" which is at least as complex
(because now the tools need to p
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>
> On mið 18.des 2013 12:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>> > Workstation WG probably will use GNOME Containers:
>>> >https://www.guadec.org/session/sandboxed-applications-for-gnome/
>>
>> That's not been discussed yet, much less decide
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
>> suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
>
> True, but it becomes the r
Lars Seipel wrote:
> Uhm. Exactly because I don't like my stuff breaking every three weeks I
> choose libraries that live up to my expectation. This might involve
> assessing the capability of an particular upstream to maintain their
> stuff going into the future or just avoiding the "latest flavor
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:53:57PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> If you like the idea of always reinventing the wheel seemingly for no good
> reason, or just to use the latest flavored language of the day, then great.
Uhm. Exactly because I don't like my stuff breaking every three weeks I
choose l
On mið 18.des 2013 12:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Workstation WG probably will use GNOME Containers:
>https://www.guadec.org/session/sandboxed-applications-for-gnome/
That's not been discussed yet, much less decided. I would advocate
for using what the Base WG and/or Env and Stacks WG settles on
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 06:01:04PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>
>> > b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
>> > up with everybody agreeing that this n
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 06:01:04PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
> > b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
> > up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
> > proposing to solve this.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse an
>> abominable hack like SC
On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
>
> No.
>
> We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse an
> abominable hack like SCLs) just to allow obsolete applications to run on
> current ve
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
No.
We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse an
abominable hack like SCLs) just to allow obsolete applications to run on
current versions of Fedora or the other way round. Current applications need
On þri 17.des 2013 22:24, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
Looking at the current WG outputs, it seems that nobody is taking on
the problem of stable application runtimes:
Probably because no maintainer has been asked for how long release cycle
they considered they could/would maintain their comp
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:27 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> there are
> lots of libraries where, for example, .so.6 would be a perfectly fine
> replacement for .so.7, but the system doesn't know that.
I think the authors of these libraries screwed up. Namely, libudev and
libffi were both mista
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
>> suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
>
> True, but it becomes the
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
> suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
True, but it becomes the responsibility of the container creator, not
"Fedora".
Anyways, I
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
>> b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
>> up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
>> proposing to solve this. Is it the B
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
> up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
> proposing to solve this. Is it the Base WG or the Env and Stacks WG?
> Or is it up to Server and
Hello,
Looking at the current WG outputs, it seems that nobody is taking on
the problem of stable application runtimes:
Primary requirement
===
If all Fedora Products are released at a fairly fast cadence, and with
a fairly short support cycle, how do I write, deploy and run an
app
58 matches
Mail list logo
