On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 07:31:24PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, John Poelstra wrote: > > > > > > === Secondary Arch Hosting === > > > * Can Fedora host binaries for secondary architectures? > > > * Change from original proposal > > > * makes it easier to get new mirrors and use mirror manager > > > * DECISION: board approves of Fedora hosting binaries for secondary > > > architectures > > > > > > > Any time frame on this? > > > > We don't currently have the infrastructure to do this and it would require > > a pretty high upfront cost to start (3 netapp shelves for our primary > > mirror setup). If this is something we need soon (before FY09) I can talk > > to netapp and see if there are any options there. > > > Dennis's request was to host the rawhide binary trees, which are ~15GB > each, not for the release ISOs. With this understanding, and after we > remove FC1-5, FE1-5, and the obsolete test releases (that'll free up > 300GB), we should be OK. > Except that as of right now we don't have anywhere to put FC1-5 and FE1-5, For this release I had planned on (if we needed it) moving F[C,E]2 to archives if needed. Is it ok to completely remove these trees or do we have to (or want to) keep them available? -Mike _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
