On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:19:33PM +1000, Joshua Wulf wrote: [snip reasonable use case] > That's the idea. It doesn't make much sense if you envision Fedora as a > RHEL beta test that you scrap each time a new version comes out, but if > it's a viable OS that can be deployed and used in a production capacity > like that described above, parallel documentation installation will be > useful. I find it to be a reasonable use case. Personally, I would move the version number after the word "Fedora", to make it clear it is about the version of the OS not the version of the document. Otherwise, the reason for the implementation makes sense. In fact, I doubt anyone will argue against the use case. The issue is that the use case did not surface until the last few weeks, although obviously it has been part of the Publican design scheme for some time. It is rather late in the Fedora 11 lifecycle to make all of this work, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just much more "hurry up" work than should have been done. Preferably, IMO, Publican makes it an option to include the version number in the package or document name, for reasons well stated elsewhere. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41
Attachment:
pgpTUwrJhMmug.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
