On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 14:29 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 20:19 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: > >> > >> but its still derived from fedora isnt it? distcc is hanging idle in > >> bugzilla for ages :) > >> someone finish the review. > >> > > > > No, because (as Max forgot to mention) the Based on Fedora must be based > > on the Binary packages, not rebuilds of the source packages. No > > published Binary, can't use it. > > That's a good point. People have to use the same binaries, signed by > Fedora/Red Hat if they want to be "official". We can't trust people to > not mess them up or do weird stuff if they rebuild from source. Not to mention which, imagine the chaos that would ensue in the community support channels when the binaries don't match what's in the Fedora repositories. What if someone decides to rebuild fedora-release and point it to non-official repositories so updates are out of sync with Fedora? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
