Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:15:19 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1) it's very clear
2) downstream can point to sources hosted by the Fedora Project
3) sources do not have to be stored 3 years, but (for example) a one
release lifecycle
If possible, this certainly looks like a winner.
Well, sources would need to be available for as long as downstreams
have done a binary release based from those sources.
This isn't true. It's the other way around. Downstream may point to FP
as long as FP has these sources online. From the moment FP decides to
take these sources off-line it's up to downstream to decide whether they
take their binaries off-line or whether to continue hosting the sources
themselves. Practically FP would commit to, say, hosting the sources for
everything it releases for the life-cycle of the release -it's then up
to downstream whether they themselves extend that period by taking over.
Whether Fedora
hosts those sources, or Fedora says they'll host those sources for a
period of time and then retire them, at which point the downstream has
to pick up the sources is debatable. Easier to manage if we provide
hosting for as many downstreams as possible, at least the exploaded
content so that hardlinks can be maximized.
Am I correct to understand that you'd rather (offer to) host the sources
for downstream projects separately (but hard-linked as much as possible
to save some space), then just host (all of) the sources?
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
