On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 10:12 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > This does bring up another issue though. If Revisor isn't getting the > job done and Pungi is what releng uses, why do we have Revisor? Or more > to the point, why is there not a coordinated effort to share code > between both for everyone's benefit? We all win of that happens. They're kind of hitting two different targets. pungi was written to handle the task of creating Fedora, and creating things that look and act like Fedora. The only features I've really put in it were things usually necessary to getting the job of creating Fedora done, with some exceptions. The fact that people can use it on their own to create things that look like Fedora is a real bonus side-effect. The tool that was used to create Fedora before we merged Core and Extras was internal to Red Hat, and not actually licensed, and far too complicated for our needs, so I created something simple and usable. Revisor adds to this a lot of features and functionality (like a gui!) that people have requested over the years for making things that look like Fedora, and things look completely different. Functionality and Features that I either was unable or unwilling to add to pungi. There is some code sharing, or at least idea sharing. Over time as APIs mature there can be more code sharing. Revisor should be getting the job done. If it's not, it would behoove you to either file bugs or talk directly to the authors to get it sorted out. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
