On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 16:48 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:49:16 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Thus I'm more and more > > wondering if we we should re-evaluate the "Fedora Alternatives" idea > > that got buried. Users of stable releases that want a bit more up2date > > stuff could get in there, while users that are a careful stick to the > > main distro, and users that like some risks use devel. > > > > But we have some much on our plate currently, thus I don't think it'll > > be wise to discuss that now. > > So? > > Rest assured, it would be wise. Much wiser than the current crap in FE, > where we have packages which conflict with other packages in Core or > Extras _explicitly_. > FE has packages explicitly conflicting with pkgs in core? I thought that was against the rules? -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
