<div class="gmail_quote">On 26 May 2010 06:16, Peter Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbrobinson@gmail.com">pbrobinson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="im">On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bernie Innocenti <<a href="mailto:bernie@codewiz.org">bernie@codewiz.org</a>> wrote:<br> > Hello everyone,<br> ><br> > we've just started a new development cycle aimed at providing Sugar 0.88<br> > for the XO-1. Our focus is stability and usability for deployments,<br> > although we're also attempting to merge a couple of low-risk features<br> > developed in Uruguay.<br> ><br> > Full details are here:<br> ><br> > <a href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes" target="_blank">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Deployment_Team/Sugar-0.88_Notes</a><br> </div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br> </div>Is F-11 still the base OS for this?<br> <font color="#888888"><br> Peter<br> </font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just for my knowledge, does Fedora have an equivalent to Ubuntu's long-term support releases? </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div> <div><br></div><div>/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?</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br> </div><div>Tim McNamara</div><div>@timClicks</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Long-term-Fedora-Linux-support-ending/2100-7344_3-6146604.html">http://news.cnet.com/Long-term-Fedora-Linux-support-ending/2100-7344_3-6146604.html</a></div> </div>