On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are >> > technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos, >> > the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable >> > interpretation of the discussions so far - still invalidate the >> > assumptions he is currently making: he can no longer assume that all he >> > basically has to worry about is getting 'Fedora' installed somehow and >> > he can then install whatever he likes. Broadly stated, it will no longer >> > be valid to conceive of Fedora as a large package repository with some >> > installation methods attached to it, whereas currently that's a pretty >> > reasonable conceptual framework that I believe many people (not just >> > Tom) employ. >> > >> > In other words, Tom was really correct. ;) >> >> I don't see how you come to that conclusion, at least not without >> making some large assumptions. The addition of alternate solutions >> for package installation and deployment doesn't preclude people from >> being able to install Fedora and use the underlying tools to point to >> the existing repos. > > No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a > vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our > *only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y version of a particular > piece of software, you use the repositories. End of story. I can do "gem install foo" or "pip install foo" on current (and past) fedora releases. So no the story does not quite end here ;) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
