Re: [fab] FSF Requirements for srpm provisions

[Dennis Gilmore <dennis ausil us>]

On Thursday 02 November 2006 14:44, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 11:32, 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.
>
> What about the Fedora project case going forward?  A spin of Fedora being
> of both Core and Extras packages, user chosen (or in some cases project
> chosen) package set.  Does EACH spin have to ship the SRPMS used, or can
> all refer back to the SRPM pool at fedoraproject.org and its mirrors?
for Aurora Extras i republished the SRPMS  even though 99% of them are the 
same as whats in Fedora Extras.  I really didn't think about not doing it.  I 
know from the core side in Aurora there are slightly more changes  but not 
alot.  again all SRPMS are published there also.  

-- 
Dennis Gilmore, RHCE
Proud Australian