On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 15:09, Mike Klinke wrote: > On Thursday 09 September 2004 13:56, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Christof Damian (christof@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > > At the moment, the Fedora updates tree is somewhat out of > > > > hand (look, wow - 27G). > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any specific and concrete objections to > > > > removing older, superceded, updates? > > > > > > I guess this is just meant for cleaning up the directory and > > > not to save space? I don't mind the cleanup, but would like the > > > old updates archived somewhere. > > > > It's for both, actually. > > > > Frankly, I see no need for archiving of: > > > > a) old test updates > > b) test updates that have been superceded by final updates > > > > Others, there could be some use for, I suppose. > > > > Bill > > Aren't old, superceded updates useful, and sometimes critical, for > determining when a particular problem might have been introduced? > I feel, just in general, it's better to have old packages available > somewhere. > > Regards, Mike Klinke > > I agree with Mike that old updates should be archived somewhere (a current problem with the new xosd comes to mind), but having said that, I think a compromise is to lose the old test updates but keep any update that has been "released". --Rob
