Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?

[Jesse Keating]

On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems 
> used by Fedora Core or the ones used for  Fedora Extras be spared a few 
> cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep the 
> infrastructure independent?. If we are waiting for the community to 
> donate time, money or resources to the project we need to list what 
> exactly is required for them to participate. While the QA procedures for 
> example are documented, the requirement for a PPC system is not. The 
> website needs a highlighted list of such documentation. 

When I brought up the thought of using the Extras build system for doing
Legacy updates, it was turned down and requested that we use our own
infrastructure.  Honestly I don't remember the reasons behind this, but
I think a lot of it was we're still carrying around content for RHL.

As far as money/resources, this is actually something I'm looking to Red
Hat for.  Red Hat wants the Fedora project to continue to grow, and
Legacy is part of that project.  I'm waiting for after FC5 is released
so that we have some cycles for other project tasks, such as getting a
copy of the CVS trees for our use and a few other things.  At that time
I'd like to talk to them about some infrastructure, or revisit the idea
of using Extras infrastructure for Legacy building and publishing.

-- 
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/20060303/8045b6d7/attachment.sig>