Zeeshan, On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 17:23 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > > That is an even more unlikely scenerio. Talk to the people involved a > bit and you'll realize this: > > <zeenix> [16:48:51] is there any intentions still to do installer for gnome? > <zeenix> [16:49:52] hughsie: poettering: owen: ^ > <zeenix> [16:50:19] the installer question, not ramcq's kudos :) > <hughsie> [16:50:44] zeenix, not by me, mclasen would kill me > <mclasen> [16:51:23] zeenix: what would the installer do ? > <zeenix> [17:00:51] mclasen: install gnome? :) > <zeenix> [17:01:09] i guess the answer is 'no' then > <ebassi> [17:12:12] zeenix: I guess the actual question would be: what > does "install gnome" mean? > <mclasen> [17:15:20] wget > http://build.gnome.org/ostree/buildmaster/images/z/current/gnome-ostree-x86_64-runtime.qcow2.gz > ? > <zeenix> [17:20:39] ebassi: i don't know. I'm just curious > > > Wouldn't we want to use the http://gnome.org/3.10 id for that rather than > > having something else use that? > > As I've been trying to explain, this is unlikely to happen in the > first place. *If* it happens, a bit of weird IDs are nothing to be > concerned or worried about. > > >> So your whole point is now > >> mute as I already made changes to my patches that do take this > >> difference in account as much as it needs to be right now. > > > > My initial point still stands, it's just weird to have http://gnome.org/3.6 > > be a fedora-based live cd, > > A very unlikely weirdness in future is fine by me and I'd choose that > over breaking the ID scheme already for it. > Considering mclasen's opinion, I'd say, go ahead for it. ACK! Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
