On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:00:05 +0100 Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I think we just said the same thing but with different words. > > 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? Yes, because then we can prune more efficiently. As each binary distribution is pruned, we can prune that specific reference to a source package. If no more binary distributions exist with references to the source package, then the actual file on the file system goes away. There may be many interim updates that don't ever get included in any binary distribution (other than our updates directory) and would be pruned out automatically when the update is superseded. -- 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
