[fab] FSF Requirements for srpm provisions

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 
> I'd prefer they have their own SRPMS, especially if they had to pull
> anything from -devel (which will get obsoleted from the download
> site soon.)
> 
> Now, if they just want one big source ISO, that's fine.
> 
> Similarly, something like Unity will probably want a source mirror b/c
> of obsoleted updates.
> 
> Bill
> 

We will do as suggested. Disk space does become an issue for smaller 
projects like Unity though. Can we simply archive the SRPMS for "updates 
only", as those are the only ones that change or become obsolete in the 
fedora tree, then just point the "GOLD" items to the core SRPMs tree? Or 
should we build the SRPM tree of what we have on the re-spins?

The question comes up that, seeing as we do not rebuild any of the 
binaries, we only group them into a final package set, do we still need 
the source at all?

-- 
Robert 'Bob' Jensen *        * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BobJensen
gpg fingerprint:     F9F4 7243 4243 0043 2C45 97AF E8A4 C3AE 42EB 0BC6
Fedora Unity Project *  bob at fedoraunity.org  * http://fedoraunity.org/