On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:26:24AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > 'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > > > I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody > > with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional > > rings that address communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept > > may be useful and desirable. Making Fedora a first class OS for > > languages where rpm packaging doesn't make sense is great! > > One thing I find strange is that while by some measurements > the rings effort would be a major change, by others it seems to > be a minor tweak of what exists today. > > I haven't seen for example any evaluation or discussion of > the apparent assumption that Ring 0 will be binary RPM packages, > maintained how they always have been. > > I haven't seen much discussion of "should ring 0 be RPMs". > > To give a random contrast, look at OpenEmbedded: > http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Main_Page Or maybe Snappy? http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/snappy -- Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality. xmpp: zdzichubg@xxxxxxxxx -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
