Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 22:37:08 UTC 2014

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at 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 ;)

More information about the devel mailing list