Retiring OpenShift v2 non-client packages from Fedora

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano at
Mon Oct 6 10:46:16 UTC 2014

On 10/03/2014 10:51 PM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2014-10-03 22:30 GMT+02:00 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at>:
>> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 21:43 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
>>> This makes sense to me, though it annoys me as a token of our failure
>>> to be an attractive platform for such use cases.
>>> DId you consider providing a copr repository ?
>> A COPR repository probably wouldn't work, because they'd have to provide
>> a conflicting version of the ruby platform. I doubt that would fly. They
>> *could* stick a private copy of ruby in a non-standard location and use
>> it, but that's an awful lot of work for uncertain gain.
>> * I'm not an OpenShift dev
> In this case, I was thinking about using an SCL. Just asking, not
> forcing a burden upon anyone.m
> I guess, this is where the work from Env&Stack WG will be critical to
> ensure that Fedora remains a viable platform for services developers
> (not only OpenShift).
> H.
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at
>> Fedora Code of Conduct:

Well, yes, we were trying... I'm currently running rebuilds of RHSCL 
also for Fedora, but there are some differences in buildroots, so it 
will take some time. Also I don't think it will be easy to attract those 
who already left for CentOS back to Fedora.


More information about the devel mailing list