On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:08:24PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 23.08.10 13:59, Jesse Keating (jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > On 8/23/10 1:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But > > > Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right now. > > > Because this is a far-reaching change to a core service, any problems people > > > encounter will be amplified -- and amplified *way more* than my little > > > complaints. I want to avoid that. > > > > Also note that Fedora 15 development is happening now, rawhide is > > composing each night, and systemd could be tested there just as easily > > as tested with Fedora 14 branched. Unlike the old days if you missed > > one release you had to wait months before trying again, we now are able > > to give you a development tree for the next release immediately. > > Well, but why? things in F14 are jolly? > > Either stop this discussion or tell me exactly which bug you think is > the one that makes you think that "systemd for f14" doesn't work out? > Maybe I should start a new thread since this isn't really a bug, but it is a blocker -- we need to get some packaging guidelines out for systemd. I think that the last message on the subject was this one: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/139483.html Could I get a reply as to whether that looks right? I'm not sure if the systemd binary names have changed since that post. As noted in the post, I'm not sure if the outlined procedure correctly implements level 1. We should probably also have the scriptlets for implementing level 3 for the things basic to the system that require that. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpTaezhFMRil.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
