On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:41:27AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Luis Villa wrote: > >On 3/25/07, Matt Domsch <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> No, that is what 3(c) is for. Only Fedora carries the long-term > >>> storage requirements in that case. (And as far as I can see, if you're > >>> still distributing FC1, Fedora has no problem with nearly indefinite > >>> storage.) > >> > >>That's the problem. We don't have infinite and indefinite storage, > > > >Which 'we'? Fedora? or Fedora's mirrors? I guess I assumed the primary > >goal here was to reduce demands on mirrors, not on Fedora. > Fedora, right now we've got 43G free on the primary mirror. I want to > know what our options are. I guess for the primary mirror we could stock up its capacities or split into download and archives, or not? It would be sad to lose the binaries of FC1 and friends, even for historical and statistical purposes. There was just a thread on another list seeking old RH releases of the 90s. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp5JMEi6aChi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
