Jesse Keating wrote:
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 see what you mean but this also means that FP is going to function as
an umbrella in a way that someone down the line is not going to be able
to do whatever it is he does just because someone within the FP doesn't
feel like it, doesn't accept it, or, has "zero confidence" in that
person (or his spin, code, you name it I may have misunderstood it).
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.
Again this option doesn't give anyone the freedom to "go at it", as it
needs FP to intervene and create some hard links. It's improvement, it
sure is, but it isn't what I've been looking for all along.
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.
To optimize with such granularity... Isn't that way too much overkill?
Nevermind, withdrawn.
This branch in the discussion isn't my beef and I should stick to my
point; giving anyone enough freedom to do whatever it is they want to do
with Fedora, based on Fedora or rebranded FUbuntu for all I care,
without the legal responsibilities of having to host or distribute the
sources or creating any other type of overhead. No-one (individuals and
small projects in particular) should care about GPL-compliance knowing
that someone else has that area covered.
If that means you wish to communicate with every individual or (small)
project that does foo with Fedora, or else you'll purge what they are
required have available when distributing their spin, in the granular
matter that you are going to hard-link each file into some published
directory dedicated to that one custom spin or downstream project... I
don't know whether to say "Thank you" or "Good luck".
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
