On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:26:06AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > > For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the > > RHL4.1 days) I have to agree. > > I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't. > > https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good-morning-bugfixing-and-thinking-about-fedora-next/ Hmm. That's an interesting read, and for what it's worth I like the position he advocates. It could be a great improvement over the current 'yum groupinstall' situation, depending on how some of the details are worked out. But looking at it from a 3rd party software perspective (F/OSS or otherwise) it's barely an incremental improvement over the current status quo -- While a third party will be able to rely on a minimal package set being present (thereby eliminating a step in their installer), they will still have to specifically target individual Fedora [Product] releases and keep up with Fedora's release cadence as well. (In other words, it's a negligable improvement without some significant changes to Fedora's release and support models) Anyway, time to resume hacking on Gutenprint. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Attachment:
pgpNp3CRFjv6q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
