Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>: > FWIW, > > 7.2 is terribly easy to upgrade to 7.3 on systems which do have i386. > 8.0 is terribly easy to upgrade to 9. Yes, true. > Tell me again why anyone should bother spending time in doing the updates > for these systems? So, the question becomes, is it worth to make RHL72 > updates for non-i386 architectures' sake? For 7.2, the reason most stated is that AS 2.1 is 7.2 based, so the AS 2.1 patches should work easily on 7.2, in fact more easily than 7.3. For 8.0, the argument is standard business practices. (Which would mean not supporting 7.2, BTW). Standard practice is to support the last "dot release" of the last X releases. So if X was 3, that would be RH 9, 8.0, and 7.3. If X was 4, that would be RH 9, 8.0, 7.3, and 6.2. And so on. In theory, if X was 2, we would do RH 9 and 8.0, not RH 9 and 7.3... > IMHO, I'd worry about getting the updates done to 7.3 and 9, and if that > succeeds, only then worrying whether there are resources for the rest. This is a pragmatic approach, but does not follow standard practices... Thus many people will be annoyed by it since their plans were based on standard practices and not on pragmatic goals. > Less is More! Sometimes. But if we have *more* volunteers then we can do *more* instead of *less*. I say support what ever we have people willing to support. We may not get enough people to support 8.0, and if not then it shouldn't be supported. But if we do get enough volunteers to support it, should we not allow it and just say "less is more" to them? Eric
