I've built a set of FC6 ia64 ISOs (CD set and DVD) which are available for download from
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/fedora/
9aea82e31ace9ceb3e5aba210f4cda14 FC6GOLD-ia64-disc1.iso c3b3dd2e4cc0e4c60e4589532e79b4b4 FC6GOLD-ia64-disc2.iso 093b5aa79be4cd9ab8aff6f743df9fec FC6GOLD-ia64-disc3.iso f90baccedc2a1d5b1a0582649235691f FC6GOLD-ia64-disc4.iso afcfa7f9d6b47b2f78107dcbcce63eef FC6GOLD-ia64-disc5.iso 88ad15a45ca9dad378636cf572f4be03 FC6GOLD-ia64-DVD.iso
(Click on Download on left-hand side, and then the FC6 directory)
These are labelled as FC6GOLD to differentiate them from the broken sets that Yanmin attempted to release last week. md5sums are provided.
We have verified CD, DVD, NFS, http, ftp installs on various HP & SGI boxes.
Please remember that FC6 ia64 is _unsupported_ by Fedora. You can file bugs, but be sure to file them against the devel branch of Fedora Core. Also, add "fedora-ia64" to the "blocks" field of the BZ.
P.
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 09:53 -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
I've built a set of FC6 ia64 ISOs (CD set and DVD) which are available for download from
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/fedora/
Hi,
are the src.rpm's also available somewhere? (you know, that open source thing ;) Also, are there plans to make expanded trees available? I tend to use those a lot more than isos....
Greetings, Arjan van de Ven
On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
are the src.rpm's also available somewhere? (you know, that open source thing ;) Also, are there plans to make expanded trees available? I tend to use those a lot more than isos....
The same srpms are used as the shipped FC6 ones. Unified srpms.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
are the src.rpm's also available somewhere? (you know, that open source thing ;) Also, are there plans to make expanded trees available? I tend to use those a lot more than isos....
The same srpms are used as the shipped FC6 ones. Unified srpms.
Sounds good to me but just a FYI
''... Warren Woodford, the founder of the MEPIS distribution, would prefer to be concentrating on polishing his latest release. Instead, he is distracted by an official notice from the Free Software Foundation that, because MEPIS has not previously supplied source code for the packages already available from the distribution it is based on -- once Debian, and now Ubuntu -- it is in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Woodford intends to comply, but he worries about how this requirement might affect all distributions derived from other distributions -- especially those run by one or two people in their spare time. ...''
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150
-Andy
On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:20, Andy Green wrote:
Sounds good to me but just a FYI
''... Warren Woodford, the founder of the MEPIS distribution, would prefer to be concentrating on polishing his latest release. Instead, he is distracted by an official notice from the Free Software Foundation that, because MEPIS has not previously supplied source code for the packages already available from the distribution it is based on -- once Debian, and now Ubuntu -- it is in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Woodford intends to comply, but he worries about how this requirement might affect all distributions derived from other distributions -- especially those run by one or two people in their spare time. ...''
Yes, where MEPIS != Debian, but in this case the ia64 compose of Fedora = Fedora. There are no changes (afaik) the ia64 binary packages were built from the same srpms at the same time that the i386, x86_64, and ppc(64) binary rpms were built.
Hi.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:37:57 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
Yes, where MEPIS != Debian, but in this case the ia64 compose of Fedora = Fedora. There are no changes (afaik) the ia64 binary packages were built from the same srpms at the same time that the i386, x86_64, and ppc(64) binary rpms were built.
The point is that ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/fedora/ has to carry the SRPMS as well, I think.
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:37:57 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
Yes, where MEPIS != Debian, but in this case the ia64 compose of Fedora = Fedora. There are no changes (afaik) the ia64 binary packages were built from the same srpms at the same time that the i386, x86_64, and ppc(64) binary rpms were built.
The point is that ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/fedora/ has to carry the SRPMS as well, I think.
Personally I think it's fine to point back to RHAT for the sources, after all you click on a link and get taken to a server with the correct sources, it is very difficult to find something to complain about that it happens to be hosted by RHAT and not the same files elsewhere. If the files disappeared from RHAT or for some other reason users could not get at them, well then it can be time to worry about hosting sources yourself. But that does not seem to be the opinion of the FSF:
''... Talking on behalf of CentOS, Johnny Hughes says, "CentOS has been providing source for all packages, changed and unchanged, in their distribution. CentOS has the same understanding of the GPL as expressed by the FSF on this issue." ... "Before I was contacted by the FSF, I didn't know that we needed to actually offer the source code of binaries we didn't modify," says John Andrews, the source code maintainer of Damn Small Linux. "Yet we do comply now, and the FSF occasionally pops in with an email to make sure we do." Similarly, LinuxCD.org, a distributor, makes only Fedora source code available -- and only provides that because it was specifically requested to do so. ...''
-Andy
Hi.
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:55:23 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
elsewhere. If the files disappeared from RHAT or for some other reason users could not get at them, well then it can be time to worry about hosting sources yourself. But that does not seem to be the opinion of the FSF:
I wonder what the FSF thinks of partial mirrors.
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
elsewhere. If the files disappeared from RHAT or for some other reason users could not get at them, well then it can be time to worry about hosting sources yourself. But that does not seem to be the opinion of the FSF:
I wonder what the FSF thinks of partial mirrors.
Hi Ralf -
I wonder what they think I ought to do when I gave my stepson a copy of the FC6 binary DVD!
-Andy
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 11:18 -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
Hi,
are the src.rpm's also available somewhere? (you know, that open source thing ;) Also, are there plans to make expanded trees available? I tend to use those a lot more than isos....
Yep. You can grab them out of the fedora devel branch.
that's a moving target though (esp since -devel has moved on quite a bit by now).. would be really nice to get a static set ;)
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
are the src.rpm's also available somewhere? (you know, that open source thing ;) Also, are there plans to make expanded trees available? I tend to use those a lot more than isos....
The same srpms are used as the shipped FC6 ones. Unified srpms.
Isn't the distributor of the binary rpms also the one responsible for distributing the source rpms? That's my understanding of the GPL, even if they are identical to ones shipped on the official Fedora sites.
Mike A. Harris wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 10:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
are the src.rpm's also available somewhere? (you know, that open source thing ;) Also, are there plans to make expanded trees available? I tend to use those a lot more than isos....
The same srpms are used as the shipped FC6 ones. Unified srpms.
Isn't the distributor of the binary rpms also the one responsible for distributing the source rpms? That's my understanding of the GPL, even if they are identical to ones shipped on the official Fedora sites.
Ugh.. my mailer had things sorted in non-date order and I didn't notice the date on this thread was old. Others already stated what I said, etc.
Sorry for the noise...
Andy Green wrote:
Hi Ralf -
I wonder what they think I ought to do when I gave my stepson a copy of the FC6 binary DVD!
Have you also given your stepson a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give him the source code?
If you forgot, then you're violating section 6c of the GPL and any Fedora contributor on this list could sue you any time :-)
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Andy Green -
Arjan van de Ven -
Bernardo Innocenti -
Jesse Keating -
Mike A. Harris -
Prarit Bhargava -
Ralf Ertzinger