On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:41 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:33:35AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > Yet we have things like the Security team who have taken up the mantel > > of ensuring that security updates go out for the packages we shipped in > > "supported" releases, regardless of what happens to the owner of that > > package. They're having a hard enough time getting volunteers for this > > effort just for the 2 live releases, let along adding N number of LTS > > releases. > > It is not because there are institutional agreements aimed at reducing, > for example, security issues, that it will work, since people are not > paid for that and there is no contract. > > Nobody is asking Security team to do things in fedora LTS. That kinda defeats the meaning of LTS then, I think. (unless some other security team would step up to the plate) If an "LTS" release doesn't guarantee stability and timely security updates, it shouldn't be called LTS. Maybe "Extended Support" or "More Volunteer Updates". But not LTS... Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
