[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: More PATH fallout. Who decided this was a good idea?

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb redhat com> wrote:
> Just wanted to let you know I am thinking about this. I need to think though
> what this does to our project and how to make sure we still get the right
> outcome.

Cool beans.

Fedora as a project is pulled in a lot of different, competing
directions, the more modular we can be, the better able this project
can be as a platform for a wider range of well defined but
non-compatible usage cases embodies as a selection of Spins or
kickstart files.

The CAPP capability stuff you are doing is just one example among
many.  While I personally don't grok the full value of CAPP, I can
totally see the capability as part of the Fedora platform being really
attractive aspect of Fedora coupled with our appliance-tools feature
for someone in the business of  building appliances .  Being able to
build appliance images which are CAPP certifiable might be a great
thing for a number of business entities that I would personally never
need to do business with for my computing needs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is CAPP certification primarily going to
be a server oriented feature? If that's the case, you should probably
get feedback from the newly ordained server SIG about alternative
implementation approaches. I'm most definitely not going to be a
consumer of CAPP certification, so my feedback on implementation
choices isn't going to be as valuable as those in your core
target..which I imagine is server admins.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]