On Thursday 02 November 2006 14:44, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 02 November 2006 11:32, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > I'd prefer they have their own SRPMS, especially if they had to pull > > anything from -devel (which will get obsoleted from the download > > site soon.) > > > > Now, if they just want one big source ISO, that's fine. > > What about the Fedora project case going forward? A spin of Fedora being > of both Core and Extras packages, user chosen (or in some cases project > chosen) package set. Does EACH spin have to ship the SRPMS used, or can > all refer back to the SRPM pool at fedoraproject.org and its mirrors? for Aurora Extras i republished the SRPMS even though 99% of them are the same as whats in Fedora Extras. I really didn't think about not doing it. I know from the core side in Aurora there are slightly more changes but not alot. again all SRPMS are published there also. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
