> 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