> Ok. There has been some external pushing to get us to try and support > every package we can. Re-evaluating the situation, I don't think it's > going to be all that difficult to provide the backports for those few > one-time errata items. So instead of trying to pre-define what we'll > support, we just support what errata comes down the pipeline. Or we could just redefine errata. Until we have the "manpower", I propose that we only focus on exploitable security errata. When it comes right down to it, that's really all I care about. If it's had a bug for as long as RH7.3 has been out, either a workaround has been found, or the end users have learned to live with it. If it's *THAT* bad of a bug, well, it should have been fixed by now... > To facilitate this, I had thought of using a WIKI system so that when > errata is needed for a certian package, we could put the package name on > the wiki, announce to the -legacy list, and the person that wants to do > the backport could add their name next to the package on the wiki, and > then process the backport. Whadda ya think? Yes, package maintainership is important. Instead of a WiKi, what if we had a "MAINTAINERS" file, like they do with the kernel. If you need to add or remove yourself, simply send a diff -u. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
