On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:40:31 -0500 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't believe it's realistic to make changes to the hosting and > mirroring arrangements either -- let's stick with the plan of keeping > them in the 'normal tree' which you called a last resort. > > We'll plan to have each spin ready on time, so it can go out fairly > much synchronously with the i386 and x86_64 releases -- and more to > the point, with precisely the same package set. If for some reason we > slip, let's impose a rule that we may not ship any packages in the > PPC spin which are not in rawhide (for the RCs) or f9-updates (for > the release). > > OK? This seems a reasonable compromise all together. I can be happy with this for Fedora 9. Hopefully by the time 9 is let loose, we'll have had at least one other full fledged secondary arch up and running and proving that the method can work. @Board folks, can this be approved at your next meeting, or do I need to drive this through FESCo ? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
