On 8/26/2010 11:53 PM, Michal Hlavinka wrote: > On Thursday 26 of August 2010 21:21:53 Garrett Holmstrom wrote: >> Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> We probably need to attack this trend more aggressively, like putting >>> expiration dates into the installer after which it'll just refuse to >>> install, stuffing fedora-release-n+1 into the Fedora n updates repository >>> at Fedora n's EOL date etc. >> >> Not only is this disingenuous, but it also contradicts Fedora's >> "Freedom" policy. Adding a big fat warning message to the installer, >> however, is much less of a problem and gets the message across just as >> effectively. Just make sure that the "expiration date" is far enough >> out in the future that we can be certain that it will occur after the >> release's EOL date since we don't know when that will be at the time of >> image creation. > > I don't think it should be far enough. It should be some time before EOL > happens. What's the point installing and configuring new system that will EOL > tomorrow / after one week? But still... +1 to warning message in the installer At the time the install images are composed the release's EOL date has not yet been decided, so we would be stuck with guessing a date and hoping it will be somewhat close. Fedora releases are either "Supported" or "Unsupported." Unless the community wants to define some third, "Sort-of-supported" state then there should be no functional changes in the installer's and repositories' behaviors until after the release goes "Unsupported." -- Garrett Holmstrom -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
