Jim Popovitch wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:08 -0700, Tim Thome wrote:
My last words on the subject...
The RH9 GA Release, as far as I can tell, was 03/31/03. Putting RH's
timeline for life-cycle, maintenance should be carried on for a
minimum of 5 years.
I think this is probably unreasonable, as the team's resources are
limited, which is why we're having this discussion.
However, as Eric wrote, there are complex production systems that
are running RH9, and the pain of upgrading these to the 2.6 kernel,
these systems may not be able to make that leap. This bar is going
to be hit with other distro's as well, including the RHEL clones.
The only alternative for RH9 users is to migrate outside of the
direct RH family, and this is bad karma for us...
No it's not.
migrate to centos 3.
it's a 2.4 kernel, it's a rebuild project, it follows rhel3 completely
and is damned-near perfect for leaving rhl9 AND it is free.
Tim make some valid points, and I don't think that telling him and
others to migrate to another distro (even if it's just like his current)
should be something done casually. I suspect that there may be lots of
^^^
That should be "shouldn't", "shouldn't be something done casually"
-Jim P.
people with RH9 who need notification now that they will need to have a
plan by XX date. I think that everyone is in agreement that RH73 and
RH9 are going away, now lets get from "going away" to "gone" without
giving people ulcers. Simply migrating to centos 3 might equate to
three or four months worth of effort by some people.
-Jim P.
--
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
