Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I'm a bit worried about this. We really want bundled libs to
> eventually go away (for any particular bundled lib). This seems like
> it could encourage permanently bundled libs. That is going to make

Upstream code is full of bundled libs. We are holding back the ocean here. I
think we can have greater overall impact with an embrace-and-improve
approach (where we float on that ocean a little bit, to stretch the
metaphor) than with a current hold-it-back-until-perfect approach.

For the core distribution, and for the Fedora Commons, we should keep to the
current practice.


> some packages conflicting for a very long time. (And the conflicting
> packages may not be providing the same service, so that you'd need
> to run two instances of Fedora to get both sets of services.)

Running two instances to get two sets of services has been the best practice
since about 1995. :)

-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux