🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9205131814.AA19527@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
>In principle, the FSF could play the role of the source site for this.
>In practice, we can't, for two reasons: we don't have enough disk
>space to keep old source versions, and we can't undertake the
>administrative burden of making these arrangements--it would be too
>much trouble if we had to negotiate with a number of sysadmins before
>deleting any version of the source.  But there are many source archive
>sites, and probably several of them will make such arrangements, thus
>splitting up the burden.

Since the FSF *does* have sites for the latest stuff, I presume therefore
that the requirement is still met if the binary is kept completely up-to-date
with respect to FSF offerings and references those?

>It's better to have five sites and offer source properly through each one
>than to have ten sites but with haphazard source access.

This seems reasonable, if you have a place to put the binary, compressed
source isn't all *that* large.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a "disgrace",
that two are called a "law firm", and that three or more become a "Congress".