On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 11:12 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> > For example, if we hand out CDs at conventions etc, we would have to
> > also hand out source CDs.
> As my reply there, however, Gentoo does still have it better than most, in
> that the LiveCDs contain relatively few binaries, and they tend to be
> relatively core packages to which sources should still be available even
> for historic releases, should we wish to continue distributing the
> historical LiveCDs. The packages CDs OTOH...
Umm... The LiveCD has almost 700 packages on it. Perhaps you mean the
> Again as I mentioned there, I'd suggest retiring package CDs 30 days after
> the next release is out, thus eliminating the largest share of the
> problem. With the limited binaries on the LiveCDs, it may be worth
> keeping the sources around as well as the LiveCDs, for historical reasons.
> Elsewise, I'd suggest retiring them 30 days after the /second/ release to
> come out after them. That should reduce Gentoo's sources requirement to a
> manageable level. Beyond that, whether those current minus-one packages,
> and current minus-two liveCDs, sources should be hosted on an archive
> server or continue on the mirrors is for Infra to decide. I'd suggest a
> policy that has RelEng archiving sources to an archive host as part of the
> RelEng process, as the most reliable and least hassle. Then they'd be
> there, and could be removed at any point after the parallel CDs using
> their binaries had been removed. However, others may have more workable
> ideas, and I'm not a dev let alone Infra, so wouldn't wish to pretend to
> decide what's best for them.
Please don't pretend that you can decide what's best for Release
Engineering, either. =]
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer