On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 6:05 AM Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Anyone else, thoughts on listing Flatpak explicitly in [0]? My interpretation is that Flatpak is already covered implicitly, in the same way that RPMs are. The careful reader will notice that "rpm" doesn't appear there except in "rpm-ostree", but no one would argue that the criterion doesn't cover managing RPMs. That said, there's some benefit to being explicit. I suppose my take is "sure, I guess." -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
