On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:57:01 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 18/08/2011 alle 11.15 +0200, Thomas Sachau ha scritto:
> >
> > The argument about dropped tarballs, once the ebuilds gets removed
> > might weight a bit more, but you
> > cannot depend on other upstream keeping their tarballs around
> > forever, so i see no requirement for
> > us preserving only specific tarballs (those created by our devs),
> > while upstream tarballs could
> > already be gone and are not preserved, once the ebuild for it is
> > gone.
>
> _Most_ upstream projects keep tarballs available of all historic
> releases; okay maybe not _all_ projects, but most, especially those
> using services such as SourceForge, Google Code, RubyForge,
> Rubygems, ...
>
> For _our_ projects, snapshots, or packages, let's try to apply a sane
> policy. And that starts by not arguing that we shouldn't be doing so
> because others might not be doing so themselves.
I'd say do it like that:
1) for our projects -- keep all historical releases (be a good
upstream),
2) for snapshots -- keep them as long as they're used (considering that
a snapshot could be recreated at any point),
3) for patches -- it would be great if we could keep them as long as
upstream keeps the relevant tarballs.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
