On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:29:11PM -0400, Wade Brainerd wrote: > Hi Martin, [...] > You seem to be suggesting that it's doomed unless we massively expand the > scope of our development efforts.
No, I'm not suggesting that. > I think all of these questions and hypothetical situations ultimately stem > from these two vantage points. > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Martin Dengler > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 1) is SoaS a separate distro to Fedora > > > > No - it changes less than 0.1% of Fedora so I cannot call it a separate > distro. We'll delete the soas git repo and strawberry ISO and then you'll still have the same distro available from fedora.redhat.com, right? I'm not going to work harder than I have already to make the SoaS Fedora distinction any clearer. SoaS has a different set of binary .ISOs and - critically - a different set of support tools and fora. Thus it's a different distro. > > 2) should SL distribute a distro of its own > > Irrelevant per 1 In fact this is the de facto sitation per 1. Hardly irrelevant. > 3) can SL do this (#2) additional work > > > > Irrelevant per 1 Per 1's supposed irrelevancy, you seem to want to conclude - despite earlier saying that SoaS was the only way we'd be able to react to deployments' needs - that SoaS is zero work to support anyway. I pointed you to emails and discussions where more work than Fedora provided was being requested. I don't see how this question can be more relevant. > Best, > Wade Martin
pgpjDYX4ivGB1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
