On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:14:37 -0700 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We can probably age out and discard those SRPMS as well... I do try > to clean out old releases for fas and pkgdb, for instance. I was thinking more for the historical record if we needed it. Ie, someone needs to know what fas version we used at time X and what was in that package. If we have the srpm and timestamp we could examine it. In practice I doubt it would come up much, especially if those packages don't have any local patches, just newer versions... > I do tend to keep at least one older version around -- I suppose that > we could just do that in the SRPM repo and only keep newest in the > RPM repo... although the primary reason to keep older packages is to > be able to revert within the first week or so of a new release in > case something is wrong with an update. Quick reversion means having > the last binary packages stick around. Yeah. Keeping one old one around seems reasonable. > > * Once per cycle we clean out the i386/x86_64 packages that are no > > longer installed on any machine. > > > +1 > > > (As a side note, I am thinking we should setup a Housekeeping SOP > > for once per cycle a few weeks after release... we can then do > > this, prune people who don't need to be in sysadmin groups anymore, > > prune hosted projects or lists, etc. Of course thats another > > topic). > > Also +1. Draft here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_post_release_housekeeping will clean up and try and get it to the point of discussing. ;) kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
