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

Re: [fab] FSF Requirements for srpm provisions

On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 23:23 -0600, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 15:50, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > As long as the SRPMs remain available.  If the respin involves packages
> > where we don't keep the RPMS/SRPMS for the life of the ISO respin then
> > we'd be in trouble.
> >
> > I know this would cause trouble for things from FC-devel.  I think it
> > would be a problem for FC-updates and FE as well.
> >
> Don't forget CVS.  It's just as valid as a source provider as the SRPMS.

Is it?  This might fall under the letter of the GPL but does it follow
the spirit?  Mirroring isos and burning them onto a disk is a no-brainer
compared to checking the version of a binary rpm you have, constructing
a cvs tag from it, and doing a cvs checkout from fedora cvs.  Not
impossible, just not on the same level of difficulty.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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