On 10/03/2014 10:51 PM, Haïkel wrote:
2014-10-03 22:30 GMT+02:00 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 21:43 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
This makes sense to me, though it annoys me as a token of our failure
to be an attractive platform for such use cases.
DId you consider providing a copr repository ?
A COPR repository probably wouldn't work, because they'd have to provide
a conflicting version of the ruby platform. I doubt that would fly. They
*could* stick a private copy of ruby in a non-standard location and use
it, but that's an awful lot of work for uncertain gain.
* I'm not an OpenShift dev
In this case, I was thinking about using an SCL. Just asking, not
forcing a burden upon anyone.m
I guess, this is where the work from Env&Stack WG will be critical to
ensure that Fedora remains a viable platform for services developers
(not only OpenShift).
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Well, yes, we were trying... I'm currently running rebuilds of RHSCL
also for Fedora, but there are some differences in buildroots, so it
will take some time. Also I don't think it will be easy to attract those
who already left for CentOS back to Fedora.
Marcela
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
