Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

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

 



On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:15:52PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> This is basically the problem I have with the work we're doing in IoT.
> The basically will make me re-evaluate if IoT is now worth doing at
> all in Fedora or whether I am now better off focusing my efforts
> elsewhere.

Is there something specific you're concerned about, or is it a general
sense that there's likely to be something that you want updated? Since IoT
is ostree-based, is it possible we could solve this by including packages
from a newer module of whatever is problematic -- or even rawhide builds?
(That is, you say that modularity isn't capable of soving this, but I'm not
sure why not.)



-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [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