On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 20:11 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > That being said, I agree with spot. There are two key issues that are > essentially taking a great idea and sinking it immediately. In order > for secondary arches to really work, I believe the arch teams need to be > able to host repositories along side the primary arches on > fedoraproject.org, and binary isos for the arches (if available) should > also be hosted. While in I agree that we _want_ to be able to do this, do we want to hold up any progress on secondary arches on a) ensuring available space[1] and b) setting up a sane[2] infrastructure for handling the putting up of the arch trees/ISOs? I don't personally think so. [snip easily avoidable bit :-] > However, it hints at another > issue which is the fact that people go to http://fedoraproject.org/ to > download Fedora. If they now have to go to foo.bar.com to download it, > you lose brand distinction. Except that even now to download Fedora, you go to mirror.kernel.org (or other local mirror site of your choice). We're not saying that we're not going to prominently link on the "Download Fedora" page. Jeremy [1] And sending 160GB drives doesn't help ;-) That's not the sort of available and mirrorable space that's really needed to be able to work within the existing infrastructure we've got for hosting content [2] I really don't want more instances along the lines of how Extras packages get up now. In fact, I hope that we manage to "fix" that with some of the other pieces in play. _______________________________________________ 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
