On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 22:00 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: > Why would they have to host sources? If it's an officially-branded spin, > then it consists only of Fedora packages, so why not just point back to > Fedora for the source?[0] In order to point to Fedora, Fedora would have to be providing them a written offer for the sources, and they in turn would have to be passing along that written offer to the people whom obtain the binaries. Since Fedora doesn't want to be in the position of "making good" on that offer, given the extreme vagueness of how long that offer has to be valid, we won't be providing that offer. Now, OLPC could provide their own written offer, and assume that Fedora infra will be around long enough for them to make good on the offer for anybody that calls it in. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is one. When Fedora hosts the binaries along with the sources, we can ensure that the sources stay around at least until the binaries are no longer offered. That is the end of our responsibility. We don't want to have to wait until every potential sub-distributor stops offering the binaries. This all gets so much easier if they just provide the source in the same place/manner as the binaries. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
