Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
Rahul
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Dennis
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
Rahul
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:53 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
Why?
-sv
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:53 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
Why?
If it is policy it should be documented.
Rahul
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 01:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:53 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
Why?
If it is policy it should be documented.
give me a break are we really so much of a bureaucratic organization that we can't allow any 'oral history' of some policies?
-sv
On 5/17/07, seth vidal skvidal@linux.duke.edu wrote:
give me a break are we really so much of a bureaucratic organization that we can't allow any 'oral history' of some policies?
Wouldn't just a few links to the mail threads on the wiki be enough? From experiences here at work if you don't at least point to the discussion of a policy someone new will violate it simply because they didn't know. On the flip side of this discussion I just assumed that was the policy for the infrastructure team considering the directions of the entire Fedora project. Once could argue the policy is "inferred".
Russell
---- Russell Harrison Systems Administrator -- Linux Desktops Cisco Systems, Inc.
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
it has been documented in many mailing list posts in the past as well as common knowledge. if that's not enough. my post from before should suffice
Dennis
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
it has been documented in many mailing list posts in the past as well as common knowledge. if that's not enough. my post from before should suffice
Do you honestly believe that mailing lists posts are going to serve this purpose? Would it be ok if I document it in the wiki?
Rahul
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Wednesday 16 May 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Has Fedora Infrastructure team consider a rule not to deploy any proprietary software and not even any software that is not available in the official Fedora repository? That would make things easier for ensuring good packaging, maintenance and licensing.
That is what our rules are. we only use what is in Fedora. if there is some OSS thing we need we get it in Fedora before we use it.
Can you document this anywhere?
it has been documented in many mailing list posts in the past as well as common knowledge. if that's not enough. my post from before should suffice
Do you honestly believe that mailing lists posts are going to serve this purpose? Would it be ok if I document it in the wiki?
By all means, go ahead and add it to a good place on the wiki.
One caveat to this general policy is that we may create custom programs from time to time and, although it is OSS, we haven't built tarballs and made a "release". These apps are usually tailored for our environment but they solve problems that are part of creating any large distro... so others could pitch in and make it more general if they wanted. These are not currently required to be packaged for Fedora. We do seem to be trying to put the code into hosted.fp.o so people can get it. (Pkgdb is absent from hosted... I'll make sure I get it added when we deploy.)
Do people think this is an allowable exception? These apps are in a grey area between one-off system administration scripts and applications that are present in multiple environments already. I think they must be OSS and their source must be available but I'm not sure if the requirement that they be packaged for Fedora is necessary.
I also foresee us running into issues at some point with version mismatches between the Fedora/EPEL packages and what we run on our servers. Maybe we want to upgrade the TurboGears stack on our servers but we don't want to change the API for EPEL. Maybe we are putting out necessary updates for the apps we are working on but upgrading the bits in Fedora/EPEL every two days doesn't seem like a good idea. We need to have some ability to separate what we package for Fedora from what we are actively developing in Infrastructure.
-Toshio
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Do people think this is an allowable exception? These apps are in a grey area between one-off system administration scripts and applications that are present in multiple environments already. I think they must be OSS and their source must be available but I'm not sure if the requirement that they be packaged for Fedora is necessary.
We had a policy in place before when I used to sys admin stuff that all the packages needs to be available in the distribution repository and any local scripts be cleanly separated. It helps a lot. You get packaging and legal checks. Even if a particular piece of software is used only in one place in the Fedora infrastructure not having it in the repository means the team is solely responsible for keeping track of any security issues. It is up to the team to decide to allow exceptions but you have to weigh the benefits carefully.
I also foresee us running into issues at some point with version mismatches between the Fedora/EPEL packages and what we run on our servers. Maybe we want to upgrade the TurboGears stack on our servers but we don't want to change the API for EPEL. Maybe we are putting out necessary updates for the apps we are working on but upgrading the bits in Fedora/EPEL every two days doesn't seem like a good idea. We need to have some ability to separate what we package for Fedora from what we are actively developing in Infrastructure.
Again any deviations from what is in the repository is additional burden for the team. Deciding on the details is why having good documentation on the policies are helpful. Maybe this could be discussed in the next IRC meeting?
Rahul
I am new to this list, so I hope noone minds me asking this question. What applications are we referring to? Are these really apps or sophisticated sys admin scripts?
On 5/29/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Do people think this is an allowable exception? These apps are in a grey area between one-off system administration scripts and applications that are present in multiple environments already. I think they must be OSS and their source must be available but I'm not sure if the requirement that they be packaged for Fedora is necessary.
We had a policy in place before when I used to sys admin stuff that all the packages needs to be available in the distribution repository and any local scripts be cleanly separated. It helps a lot. You get packaging and legal checks. Even if a particular piece of software is used only in one place in the Fedora infrastructure not having it in the repository means the team is solely responsible for keeping track of any security issues. It is up to the team to decide to allow exceptions but you have to weigh the benefits carefully.
I also foresee us running into issues at some point with version mismatches between the Fedora/EPEL packages and what we run on our servers. Maybe we want to upgrade the TurboGears stack on our servers but we don't want to change the API for EPEL. Maybe we are putting out necessary updates for the apps we are working on but upgrading the bits in Fedora/EPEL every two days doesn't seem like a good idea. We need to have some ability to separate what we package for Fedora from what we are actively developing in Infrastructure.
Again any deviations from what is in the repository is additional burden for the team. Deciding on the details is why having good documentation on the policies are helpful. Maybe this could be discussed in the next IRC meeting?
Rahul
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Freddie Rosario -
Rahul Sundaram -
Russell Harrison -
seth vidal -
Toshio Kuratomi