On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 16:52 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:00 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 15:39 -0400, James Laska wrote:
There was one additional change made to the wiki that wasn't previously
discussed. I removed the Beta criteria "The installer must be able to
use the CD and DVD local package source options". Since we no longer
provide CD images, and the DVD package repo is handled in the Alpha,
this is no longer required.
I've migrated the changes into the Fedora 16 release criteria pages.
Diffs linked below ...
* Alpha -
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria&action=historysubmit&diff=244424&oldid=242424
* Beta -
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_16_Beta_Release_Criteria&action=historysubmit&diff=244427&oldid=239215
* Final -
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_16_Final_Release_Criteria&action=historysubmit&diff=244428&oldid=239217
<snip>
> > > > 15 and 17: not entirely sure what the question is here. The Alpha
> > > > criterion specifically limits itself to the media, and the generic-*
> > > > packages are not included on the media. It is acceptable for packages in
> > > > the repository but not on the media to conflict.
> > >
> > > That's what I was hoping to get clarification on. Is it generally
> > > accepted that the phrasing "release repository" means the online
> > > +mirrored repos, not the media-based repos?
> >
> > I dunno, that was just the wording I came up with at the time, I
> > think :) If we can clarify it, that's all to the good.
>
> Is it better/same/worse as follows ...
>
> * The final branded release notes from the Documentation team must
> be present on ISO media and the appropriately versioned generic
> release notes must be available in the online release repository
> * A fedora-release package containing the correct names,
> information and repository configuration for a final Fedora
> release (as opposed to a pre-release) must be present on ISO
> media while the appropriately versioned generic-release package
> must be available in the online release repository </run-on>
Any opinions on the above phrasing?
Thanks,
James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
