On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:04 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 15:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:31:11PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > > http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/buglist-rhl73.html, I see 95% of cruft that > > > makes it difficult to focus on the 4 or 5% that I care about. Do we > > > really need to be releasing a mozilla for rh73? > > > > Yes, if we consider rh73 supported at all. There's important remote security > > flaws in the older version. > > I have rh73 installs that don't have mozilla installed. What's the > impact on me? > > My question is this: Do we waste time and distract from important > packages by crowding the field with application level patches for > allications that few (if anyone) is using. Seriously, who is using RH73 > in desktop environments? Do we have any stats on this? > >From the conversation on list that I had, I suspect not but in the same thread I suggested that FL help to establish a contributor repository so that those who do build apps such as mozilla for the older releases can offer them. I do not recall whether or not this was possible but it would sure ease things. Is it a possibility? -- G. Roderick Singleton <gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxx> PATH tech -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
