On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 09:07 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:02:40 +0100 > Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Personally I am opposed to trying to find clever ways to not needing > > to host the source (rpms). Finding ways to do anything different from > > *just making the sources available online* for a period of time is > > asking for trouble; It should work, but what if it doesn't -or fails > > half-way? How does investing in a couple of discs weigh (each > > release?) against the potential legal liability of losing anything > > because in the past you thought you needed some 'clever way' to make > > sources available. > > > > I can't really understand though how anyone could be opposed to the > > Fedora Project releasing under 3b. > > Forgive my use of "clever". I meant making use of hardlinks so that > keeping the sources for each available binary release online less of a > problem. I also want to avoid the "clever" idea of regenerating srpms > on the fly. I just want them available, but I want them available just > for the period of time the binary release is available, so that when > the binary release is retired, so can any sources associated with it, > that aren't used by a different binary release. I'm more than happy > with the Fedora project taking on that resource, but I want it done in > a way that has a reasonable end in sight, not an infinite trap. > 3 years is a long time for keeping the sources around if we generate them that way. It seems like we're better off in terms of space and in terms of being able to provide sources for the longer run if we can generate srpms on the fly out of cvs. -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
