Rename to libOSTree #659
Closed
Rename to libOSTree #659
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There are many motivating factors. The biggest is simply that at a practical
level, the command line is not sufficient to build a real system. The docs say
that it's a demo for the library. Let's make that more obvious, so people don't
try to use `ostree admin upgrade` for their real systems, and also don't use
e.g. `ostree commit` on the command line outside of test suites/quick hacking.
This change will also help clarify the role of rpm-ostree, which we will likely
be renamed to "nts". Then use of the term "ostree" will become much clearer. And
similarly for other people writing upgraders, they can say they use libostree.
I didn't try to change all of the docs and code at once, because it's going to
lead to conflicts.
The next big steps are:
- Rename the github repo (github will inject a redirect)
- Look at supporting a build where we don't do `ostree admin`, or at least
it's only built for tests. We may want to split it off as a separate binary
or so? That way people with their own upgraders don't need to ship it.
cgwalters
added a commit
to cgwalters/rpm-ostree
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 30, 2017
This is in concert with ostreedev/ostree#659. We can now talk coherently about `nts` when that's what we mean, rather than just the base libostree. I've heard many people talk about "ostree layering", but no such thing exists 😃. Also, `nts` is just shorter to say, and type, etc. It's a net-new brand, but I think that's OK. Obviously, there's a lot more changes we could do here, but I don't want to create conflicts, just start the ball rolling.
|
Let's do this! |
rh-atomic-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2017
There are many motivating factors. The biggest is simply that at a practical
level, the command line is not sufficient to build a real system. The docs say
that it's a demo for the library. Let's make that more obvious, so people don't
try to use `ostree admin upgrade` for their real systems, and also don't use
e.g. `ostree commit` on the command line outside of test suites/quick hacking.
This change will also help clarify the role of rpm-ostree, which we will likely
be renamed to "nts". Then use of the term "ostree" will become much clearer. And
similarly for other people writing upgraders, they can say they use libostree.
I didn't try to change all of the docs and code at once, because it's going to
lead to conflicts.
The next big steps are:
- Rename the github repo (github will inject a redirect)
- Look at supporting a build where we don't do `ostree admin`, or at least
it's only built for tests. We may want to split it off as a separate binary
or so? That way people with their own upgraders don't need to ship it.
Closes: #659
Approved by: jlebon
|
💔 Test failed - status-atomicjenkins |
|
bot, retest this please |
|
Bah, getting confused with all the bots! |
rh-atomic-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2017
There are many motivating factors. The biggest is simply that at a practical
level, the command line is not sufficient to build a real system. The docs say
that it's a demo for the library. Let's make that more obvious, so people don't
try to use `ostree admin upgrade` for their real systems, and also don't use
e.g. `ostree commit` on the command line outside of test suites/quick hacking.
This change will also help clarify the role of rpm-ostree, which we will likely
be renamed to "nts". Then use of the term "ostree" will become much clearer. And
similarly for other people writing upgraders, they can say they use libostree.
I didn't try to change all of the docs and code at once, because it's going to
lead to conflicts.
The next big steps are:
- Rename the github repo (github will inject a redirect)
- Look at supporting a build where we don't do `ostree admin`, or at least
it's only built for tests. We may want to split it off as a separate binary
or so? That way people with their own upgraders don't need to ship it.
Closes: #659
Approved by: jlebon
|
💔 Test failed - status-atomicjenkins |
|
@rh-atomic-bot retry |
|
☀️ Test successful - status-atomicjenkins |
LorbusChris
pushed a commit
to LorbusChris/ostree-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2018
This is the inverse of upstream ostreedev/ostree#659 but renaming the package would be hard for low immediate gain. With this at least, flatpak could theoretically depend just on libostree. And similarly for rpm-ostree compose tree (when that gets split out).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There are many motivating factors. The biggest is simply that at a practical
level, the command line is not sufficient to build a real system. The docs say
that it's a demo for the library. Let's make that more obvious, so people don't
try to use
ostree admin upgradefor their real systems, and also don't usee.g.
ostree commiton the command line outside of test suites/quick hacking.This change will also help clarify the role of rpm-ostree, which we will likely
be renamed to "nts". Then use of the term "ostree" will become much clearer. And
similarly for other people writing upgraders, they can say they use libostree.
I didn't try to change all of the docs and code at once, because it's going to
lead to conflicts.
The next big steps are:
ostree admin, or at leastit's only built for tests. We may want to split it off as a separate binary
or so? That way people with their own upgraders don't need to ship it.