[CentOS-devel] RFC: OCaml SIG

Johnny Hughes

johnny at centos.org
Thu Nov 20 17:47:58 UTC 2014


On 11/20/2014 10:08 AM, Jonathan Ludlam wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: centos-devel-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-
>> bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Jim Perrin
>> Sent: 20 November 2014 2:29 PM
>> To: centos-devel at centos.org
>> Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] RFC: OCaml SIG
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/2014 07:41 AM, Jonathan Ludlam wrote:
>>
>>>> This seems like a very good start to the proposal. A few
>>>> questions/statements:
>>>>
>>>> 1. What would you require in terms of distribution resources?  I'm
>>>> assuming git/koji access, so that you could build and distribute sig
>> packages.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds right.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1a. Would you require a mailing list or forum area?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think a mailing list would be helpful. Personally I'm less bothered by the
>> forum area, but others may disagree.
>>>
>>>> 2. What do you envision for release planning? Tracking upstream
>>>> builds vs a newer stabilized release?
>>>
>>> I would imagine this decision being taken on a case-by-case basis. For
>> critical things such as the compiler and some of the core libraries we may
>> want to take the releases only after they've stabilised in the community for a
>> while - e.g. the 4.02.0 release had a number of issues that 4.02.1 addressed,
>> so we should be conservative in areas like this. For projects that are less
>> mature, it may make more sense to simply track the releases as they happen.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. How would releases be built/scheduled? Build every month, every 6
>>>> months, "when something happens upstream" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Things happen upstream quite rapidly at the moment, so that would be too
>> frequent. I suspect a monthly cadence would be right to begin with.
>>
>>
>> In thinking about this a bit more (and based on the pace of upstream you
>> mention), it seems like this might be something which could be done via
>> software collections. That way if there's a compatibility break for some
>> reason, users would be able to have both an older and current version.
>> Would you be willing to do this as part of a software collection?
>>
> 
> I imagine so; my only concern would be whether we can have the Virt SIG depend upon a software collection, as Johnny Hughes already mentioned a desire to have the Xen builds depend upon a newer version of OCaml. Is this feasible in the same way that SIGs can depend upon each other?
> 
> Jon

I think we can do it as an SCL and even as part of the SCL SIG

We should be able to change the ocaml requires in the xen SPEC to use
the SCL (and include scl-utils) and modify the xen startup scripts to
call the correct variables from the SCL to set everything up on startup.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20141120/610eb161/attachment-0004.sig>


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list