On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
> > technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
> > the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
> > interpretation of the discussions so far - still invalidate the
> > assumptions he is currently making: he can no longer assume that all he
> > basically has to worry about is getting 'Fedora' installed somehow and
> > he can then install whatever he likes. Broadly stated, it will no longer
> > be valid to conceive of Fedora as a large package repository with some
> > installation methods attached to it, whereas currently that's a pretty
> > reasonable conceptual framework that I believe many people (not just
> > Tom) employ.
> >
> > In other words, Tom was really correct. ;)
>
> I don't see how you come to that conclusion, at least not without
> making some large assumptions. The addition of alternate solutions
> for package installation and deployment doesn't preclude people from
> being able to install Fedora and use the underlying tools to point to
> the existing repos.
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
*only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y version of a particular
piece of software, you use the repositories. End of story.
I can do "gem install foo" or "pip install foo" on current (and past)
fedora releases.
So no the story does not quite end here ;)