Sorry for the top post, I'm on my crackberry. We need to male sure to CLEARLY communicate this to mirror admins. I'm sure that more than 1 excludes releases/9/ since it is considered to be static content after release in order to reduce the number of files for rsync to consider. On 8/28/08, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 01:51 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> If 9/ is excluded, wouldn't that mean 9/$releasever/*/os.newkey is also >> excluded? If it's not, then I guess there's no point in the new >> directory being created either. > > Yes, if 9 is excluded (or included) that means the admin either doesn't > care about 9 and doesn't want to mirror it, or explicitly cares about it > and only wants to mirror it. Either way I wish to honor those choices > by not changing the top level directory where "9" or "8" will be. This > also means we won't have to re-file our export approval. > >> >> Will the ISOs be respun to reflect the changes as well so that what is >> in os/ or in os.newkey/ meets what each of the ISO expects? I guess this >> is primarily relevant to respins, netinstalls and so forth, as the old >> RPM-GPG-KEYs will be in the root of those ISOs and I can only presume >> they are used, and people will want to use os.newkey/ as the tree to >> install from. > > At this time, the isos will not be respun. We will however re-sign the > SHA1SUM file with the new gpg key. We are certain that the content on > the ISOs (and the numerous hard copies floating about) are safe. The > only content to be left in the repos these isos will be able to access > out of the box will be the transition fedora-update release, and the > fixed packagekit for gpg importing. We'll also have mirrormanager > direct all requests for the old dir directly to mirrors which we have > ultimate control over. > >> >> Has creating/composing an entirely new 9.1/ release tree been >> considered? I guess recreating the entire release tree is a PITA (jigdo, >> iso, torrent, foo) even though updates would not be included other then >> maybe the updated fedora-release package (with the new rpm-gpg-keys and >> new repo configuration files)? > > It was considered briefly, but not very much. Calling something 9.1 > would also have a bit of an assumption that we've fixed some bugs or > otherwise made it a better release, which we aren't doing. We're merely > re-signing content and placing it in a slightly different directory, but > it's still 9, not 9+something. (ditto 8) > > -- > Jesse Keating > Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! > identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com Jon Stanley Fedora Bug Wrangler jstanley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
