Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-19

Dennis Gilmore dennis at ausil.us
Mon Feb 25 20:28:00 UTC 2008

On Monday 25 February 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:53:52 -0500
> >
> > Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Mike McGrath (mmcgrath at redhat.com) said:
> > > > > Dennis's request was to host the rawhide binary trees, which are
> > > > > ~15GB each, not for the release ISOs.  With this understanding, and
> > > > > after we remove FC1-5, FE1-5, and the obsolete test releases
> > > > > (that'll free up 300GB), we should be OK.
> > > >
> > > > Except that as of right now we don't have anywhere to put FC1-5 and
> > > > FE1-5, For this release I had planned on (if we needed it) moving
> > > > F[C,E]2 to archives if needed.  Is it ok to completely remove these
> > > > trees or do we have to (or want to) keep them available?
> > >
> > > If we don't have the space to archive them, then maybe we have to punt
> > > on secondary arches for the moment.
> >
> > Why?  Hosting is important, but not key to making it work is it?
> The last thing I heard was that secondary arches would be hosted
> elsewhere.  Infact nothing about secondary arches was to be hosted by
> official Fedora Infrastructure people.  I'm not sure when that changed.
> I'm not saying we can't host it there, I'm just saying I don't know if we
> can.

It has always been intended to be hosted elsewhere.  due to limitations in 
fedora's storage.  I asked Matt last week what is involved in setting up 
mirror manager so that it can keep track of secondary arches.  It is a 
non-trivial amount of work to do so.  We then looked at what storage we have 
and what will be involved to host the bits on the master mirrors.  we have 
enough room right now to host binaries for rawhide.  so as an interim measure 
Matt and I both thought it would be ok to host rawhide binaries and make them 
available for mirrors to pick up.  Long term we would need to evaluate a few 

1)  do we have the space to host secondary arches going forward. 
2) get work done on mirror manager to support different locations for trees. 
(id like to use this for OLPC also)
3) securing  storage and bandwidth to host a primary mirror for secondary 

if we get all current secondary arches up and running we are looking at sparc, 
alpha, arm, ia64, s390  with possibly others.  at a rough guess the rawhide 
tree is ~15gb per arch.  sparc will be like ppc and have 2 arches though we 
will only release one as a set of iso's

So for right now the proposal was put rawhide binaries on the primary mirrors 
to get wider testing.  and allow mirrormanager to work.  but we quickly need 
to work out what to do from a release point of view.  

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20080225/f713d742/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list