[CentOS-devel] RFC: OCaml SIG

> On 20 Nov 2014, at 17:49, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
In which case, I see no problem with this approach. What are the next steps?

Jon

> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel