Quoting Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 05:14:26PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > > So.. Why do we want these bugs? If Fedora didn't fix them while they > > had the responsibility, they surely shouldn't be shorned in our > > direction either ? > > Um, because some of them are security bugs that they never got around to > fixing. That's kind of annoying (Fedora security process definitely seems to Exactly. > I think all the non-security FC2 bugs should be closed as WONTFIX, with the > note: > > "Fedora Core 2 is now maintained for security updates only by the Fedora > Legacy project. If this problem is a security issue, please reopen and > reassign to the Fedora Legacy product. If it is not a security issue and > hasn't been resolved in the current FC4 test release, reopen and change the > version to match." I agree 100% on this. Only exception might be if it is one of those packages in the testing stage, and we want to push it out after our own QA. But if it isn't security, and isn't already to the testing state, then mark it as WONTFIX. > But I am a bit reluctant to do this to 1100+ bugs without some general > agreement that this is a good idea. My opinion is that you are 100% correct in your thinking. FL is about security updates, period. > -- > Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> > Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
