Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Sat Nov 1 02:47:58 UTC 2008

On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 22:00 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
> Why would they have to host sources? If it's an officially-branded spin,
> then it consists only of Fedora packages, so why not just point back to
> Fedora for the source?[0]

In order to point to Fedora, Fedora would have to be providing them a
written offer for the sources, and they in turn would have to be passing
along that written offer to the people whom obtain the binaries.  Since
Fedora doesn't want to be in the position of "making good" on that
offer, given the extreme vagueness of how long that offer has to be
valid, we won't be providing that offer.

Now, OLPC could provide their own written offer, and assume that Fedora
infra will be around long enough for them to make good on the offer for
anybody that calls it in.  That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it
is one.

When Fedora hosts the binaries along with the sources, we can ensure
that the sources stay around at least until the binaries are no longer
offered.  That is the end of our responsibility.  We don't want to have
to wait until every potential sub-distributor stops offering the

This all gets so much easier if they just provide the source in the same
place/manner as the binaries.

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- 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/20081031/43307efa/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list