Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

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

 



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
>> Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
>> > is based upon systemd.
>>
>> That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
>
> If you are referring to Ubuntu, then yes. But then again, they already
> have their own app packaging format based around .debs and
> AppArmor. So yeah, we might be dicks by not supporting non-systemd
> systems, but they were dicks first, by not supporting non-Ubuntu systems
> for their app images. And that's quite some consolation, no? ;-)

No, calling each other dicks is overall not at all consoling.

Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
interpreting it with our technologies but staying compatible?
    Mirek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[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