Mirror/server RFE: Do not remove old kernel from updates.

[Gilboa Davara]

On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 13:07 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007 12:56:59 Tony Nelson wrote:
> >  Although it would be best for Fedora users if all
> > updated packages were retained and available for downgrading, certainly the
> > kernel deserves special consideration, as changes to the kernel can prevent
> > the entire system from working.
> 
> And where do we find this mythical beast of unlimited storage?

... and this is why open discussions always turn into spam fights.
I asked for a special consideration concerning old kernel releases (!)
that -were- released as an update for -active- fedora releases. (Read:
F-Current, F-Current - 1).
Soon Mr Matok turned the "kernel" into "software", and the need to keep
the kernel -on the server- into supporting proprietary non-GPL (!!!)
kernel modules (!!!) and from there on, we need mythical beast with
unlimited storage and hordes of men to support the 2.4.x kernel Fedora
Core 1 just because nVidia/ATI/VMWare/etc/<insert binary module name>
refuses to fix their bugs.

If I can be allowed to stick to the subject, lets talk about numbers.
Each kernel release (x86_64 in my case, including the
kernel-devel.[i686/i586], xen and kdump) eats around 80MB.
Keeping the 5 latest releases translates to 400MB.
In comparison, each OO release is ~600MB. (660MB to be exact)
-updates currently hold two OO releases - add -core to the mix, and OO
alone eats 1800MB.

Now I may be dead wrong, and wasting 400MB of old kernels (for released
versions only - not rawhide/test releases) is way-above-and-beyond
Fedora's current capacity.
Maybe Fedora should store the last released kernel of each minor
release. (2.6.17-xxx, 2.6.18-xxx, etc) - I don't know, lets here some
open discussion about it.
... Somehow I doubt that writing off my post as "not enough storage,
against policy - good bye" can be considered constructive in any type or
form.

- Gilboa