On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:28:52 +0100 Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On the other hand you rely on downstream to tell you when it is OK > for them to have you purge the binary (as well as the sources) all > and all not making it very manageable or even sustainable in the long > run. Committing to provide the sources for a given period of time > however let's you crontab a 'find -exec', leaving any "real > responsibility" to downstream; far more efficient and way more > manageable for us, good enough for anyone else. No, I rely on the downstream to either purge their release themselves, either by replacing it with a newer one, or having it autopurged at a time agreed upon when accepting the donated hosting. The key is tying the removal of the binary release with the removal of the source release. I suppose we could be less helpful and just say we're going to host the source you used for $bla time, after that you're SOL, but I'm trying to be a bit more helpful. > > BTW, these interim updates, builds or even CVS commits are not > released effectively -like you said they are never included in any > binary distribution. I'm thinking these got included in the bigger > picture somehow, while I was just talking about released updates > (possibly including updates-testing) -nothing more, not even > development/. I was talking about released (or -testing) updates that were never included in any respin. They went out as an update, then later was replaced by a newer update, without any respin coming along and using them. -- 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
