New Key Repo Locations

[Jon Stanley]

Sorry for the top post, I'm on my crackberry. We need to male sure to
CLEARLY communicate this to mirror admins. I'm sure that more than 1
excludes releases/9/ since it is considered to be static content after
release in order to reduce the number of files for rsync to consider.



On 8/28/08, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 01:51 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> If 9/ is excluded, wouldn't that mean 9/$releasever/*/os.newkey is also
>> excluded? If it's not, then I guess there's no point in the new
>> directory being created either.
>
> Yes, if 9 is excluded (or included) that means the admin either doesn't
> care about 9 and doesn't want to mirror it, or explicitly cares about it
> and only wants to mirror it.  Either way I wish to honor those choices
> by not changing the top level directory where "9" or "8" will be.  This
> also means we won't have to re-file our export approval.
>
>>
>> Will the ISOs be respun to reflect the changes as well so that what is
>> in os/ or in os.newkey/ meets what each of the ISO expects? I guess this
>> is primarily relevant to respins, netinstalls and so forth, as the old
>> RPM-GPG-KEYs will be in the root of those ISOs and I can only presume
>> they are used, and people will want to use os.newkey/ as the tree to
>> install from.
>
> At this time, the isos will not be respun.  We will however re-sign the
> SHA1SUM file with the new gpg key.  We are certain that the content on
> the ISOs (and the numerous hard copies floating about) are safe.  The
> only content to be left in the repos these isos will be able to access
> out of the box will be the transition fedora-update release, and the
> fixed packagekit for gpg importing.  We'll also have mirrormanager
> direct all requests for the old dir directly to mirrors which we have
> ultimate control over.
>
>>
>> Has creating/composing an entirely new 9.1/ release tree been
>> considered? I guess recreating the entire release tree is a PITA (jigdo,
>> iso, torrent, foo) even though updates would not be included other then
>> maybe the updated fedora-release package (with the new rpm-gpg-keys and
>> new repo configuration files)?
>
> It was considered briefly, but not very much.  Calling something 9.1
> would also have a bit of an assumption that we've fixed some bugs or
> otherwise made it a better release, which we aren't doing.  We're merely
> re-signing content and placing it in a slightly different directory, but
> it's still 9, not 9+something.  (ditto 8)
>
> --
> Jesse Keating
> Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
> identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Jon Stanley
Fedora Bug Wrangler
jstanley at fedoraproject.org