[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] FSF Requirements for srpm provisions

Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0500, 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?

If you hose those off of fedoraproject.org (thereby making them official
Fedora projects) then the problem would be solved.

Yes. Any respins done purely out of the formal Fedora pool of packages can be hosted off fedoraproject.org. In particular, use the bittorrent server. Fedora Unity and any others could do that and solve various infrastructure issues for free and focus efforts on the respin itself rather than worry about how to get it out there to end users.

In the near future, tools like Pungi* could help do the respins and other variations in a easier way.


* https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-October/msg00673.html

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]