On 01/15/2017 04:47 PM, Antonio Murdaca wrote: > > > On Jan 15, 2017 10:07 PM, "Dusty Mabe" <dusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 01/13/2017 11:18 AM, Antonio Murdaca wrote: > > > > > > > > That sounds good. However, I didn't fully understand how to achieve that. Do you mean that docker-latest shouldn't build docker-latest anymore but just require "docker" and make a symlink out of it? > > Exactly. in other words, it's just a placeholder for now. > With the power of git it won't be too hard to revive the > spec file to start building it again if we decide we need to. > > > Not sure that's gonna work well. The thing that's not really the point maybe. The issue is there's really a lack of users for docker-latest and I'm questioning its existence :). > Take F24 for instance, docker is at 1.10.3 while docker-latest is at 1.12.6. However, nobody really test/use it resulting in me spending time updating it where it sounds like nobody cares about it. > Your approach works for F25, both docker and docker-latest are at 1.12.x. > Maybe we should just wait for system containers and keep building it (on me). I think the proposed strategy would work just fine, but, like you said, the bigger question is "do we have any users for docker-latest in Fedora"? If we don't think so then scrapping docker-latest until demand rises is ok with me. In the end you are the one doing the work so you have the most say in what happens. Dusty _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
