On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 11:12 +0000, Duncan wrote: > > For example, if we hand out CDs at conventions etc, we would have to > > also hand out source CDs.
> As my reply there, however, Gentoo does still have it better than most, in > that the LiveCDs contain relatively few binaries, and they tend to be > relatively core packages to which sources should still be available even > for historic releases, should we wish to continue distributing the > historical LiveCDs. The packages CDs OTOH... Umm... The LiveCD has almost 700 packages on it. Perhaps you mean the InstallCD? > Again as I mentioned there, I'd suggest retiring package CDs 30 days after > the next release is out, thus eliminating the largest share of the > problem. With the limited binaries on the LiveCDs, it may be worth > keeping the sources around as well as the LiveCDs, for historical reasons. > Elsewise, I'd suggest retiring them 30 days after the /second/ release to > come out after them. That should reduce Gentoo's sources requirement to a > manageable level. Beyond that, whether those current minus-one packages, > and current minus-two liveCDs, sources should be hosted on an archive > server or continue on the mirrors is for Infra to decide. I'd suggest a > policy that has RelEng archiving sources to an archive host as part of the > RelEng process, as the most reliable and least hassle. Then they'd be > there, and could be removed at any point after the parallel CDs using > their binaries had been removed. However, others may have more workable > ideas, and I'm not a dev let alone Infra, so wouldn't wish to pretend to > decide what's best for them. Please don't pretend that you can decide what's best for Release Engineering, either. =] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
