Documentation question at fedoralegacy.org

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 15:43 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
> If you have a x86_64 system and want to test the builds that are there
> and say yea or no on the packages then go right ahead.  But, until we
> are sure they don't break anything we can't officially say yes to this. 

This really comes down to lack of verbosity on my part.  I think it went
something like this:

<builder> Hey I noticed our new buildsystem we're testing is kicking out
x86_64 packages.  Neat.

<me> Yeah, thats one of the main reasons why we're looking at this.

<builder> The 32bit stuff is looking really good and we're going to
publish this update as built by the new system.  Should we include the
x86_64 package?

<me> ... um... Sure why not?

<community> Hey, I see this release announcement mentions x86_64, cool!
But the packages aren't on the server, wtf?

<me> oh crap!  I guess I actually have to do some work to get x86_64
published, let me fix that....

<community> hey there they are cool.  So is this official?

<me> ... um.... 

(;

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20060303/32138af9/attachment.sig>