On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 22:25 -0400, Paul Nasrat wrote: > > I assume for the weekly snapshots of rawhide that you'll be putting > > unique (eg date based) names on the isos so they can be readily > > identified, else you're going to run into trouble tracking issues > > across media sets. > > To be honest, I'm not convinced that weekly ISO builds are particularly > useful -- we don't do that for rawhide on other architectures either. > It's probably better just to encourage people to use rsync to keep up > with rawhide, rather than downloading it all over again each week. > > > Do these isos correspond with FC5 or a random snapshot? > > Rawhide for about a week leading up to March 20th was identical to FC5 > in all but the 'fedora-release' package. > > If making an IA64 'FC5' I'd be inclined to replace the fedora-release > package too. In fact, you almost certainly want to do that anyway, since > you'll be publishing the errata, and fedora-release contains the yum > configuration. That might be helpful: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187250 > Aside from the updates, the next task is building Extras and Livna for > IA64, of course... and who's going to do ATrpms? ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpTH0Opy97tJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
