On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 12:30:28PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > This means that we still have repos for fedora-18-* and epel-5-*. > > Is this reasonable? Or are we just wasting storage? According to our logs those repositories are still accessed (yes > even that fedora-18). It could be it's some version independent noarch content that just works fine even on latest OSes? > Personally, I think that keeping the repositories one year after EOL date is just fine. That means we delete fedora-24-* > and older and epel-5-*. What do you think? Can you use some "hasn't been accessed in the past 180 days" filter for them, to see how much space could be freed without disrupting people who for some reason still use the old content? In any case, it'd be nice to notify the owners of those repos to give them chance to review what they have and potentially rebuild their content on newer buildroots, or just mark their repos "alive" and extend the expiration for another 180 days. Or something to that effect. > Do you have a use case for using ancient fedoras repos? What is better for you: to have ancient fedora repos or to have >From time to time, I start containers as old as Fedora 24 to test some behaviour -- namely it was the last Fedora where systemd reliably produced status log in docker, but it's also useful to for checking regressions. I don't use copr repos for that but i can imagine there are people who do. -- Jan Pazdziora Senior Principal Software Engineer, Security Engineering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/HKLIQKRQBUJJNPGTQ27FXYGUW657VLP3/
