On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tim McNamara <paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> >> wrote: >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88 >> > for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments, >> > although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features >> > developed in Uruguay. >> > >> > Full details are here: >> > >> > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes >> >> Is F-11 still the base OS for this? >> >> Peter >> > > Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term > support releases?
No > Without thinking too deeply about the implications, it make sense (to me) to > peg XO development to something that's stable over a few years. That way > package versions etc will be widely known and consistent. > /me reads [1]. Apparently not. Is there anyway to achieve > something similar without needing to pay for RHEL, which is probably a bit > of an overkill? Well RHEL requires licensing, there's CentOS but the current release of both of the aforementioned have a stable set of packages too old for Sugar. RHEL-6 might well provide the stability we need but its not out yet, and the associated CentOS release can be quite a bit delayed. Its something that is being reviewed but as there is not official RHEL/CentOS release yet we can't say when that will be. Peter _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
