On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:34 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0500, 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? > > If you hose those off of fedoraproject.org (thereby making them official > Fedora projects) then the problem would be solved. As long as the SRPMs remain available. If the respin involves packages where we don't keep the RPMS/SRPMS for the life of the ISO respin then we'd be in trouble. I know this would cause trouble for things from FC-devel. I think it would be a problem for FC-updates and FE as well. Also, if one aim is for third parties to be able to redistribute the isos on CD, they might like to have the SRPMS packaged onto isos as well (just in case someone asks them for it). -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
