Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

[Solomon Peachy]

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:26:06AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the 
> > RHL4.1 days) I have to agree. 
> 
> I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.
> 
> https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good-morning-bugfixing-and-thinking-about-fedora-next/

Hmm.  That's an interesting read, and for what it's worth I like the 
position he advocates. It could be a great improvement over the current 
'yum groupinstall' situation, depending on how some of the details are 
worked out.

But looking at it from a 3rd party software perspective (F/OSS or 
otherwise) it's barely an incremental improvement over the current 
status quo -- While a third party will be able to rely on a minimal 
package set being present (thereby eliminating a step in their 
installer), they will still have to specifically target individual 
Fedora [Product] releases and keep up with Fedora's release cadence as 
well.  (In other words, it's a negligable improvement without some 
significant changes to Fedora's release and support models)

Anyway, time to resume hacking on Gutenprint.

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy        		       pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL                          ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140202/9e6a7f96/attachment.sig>