On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:51:45AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:04:22 +0100 > Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I thought about a plan regarding Updates After End of Life (UAEL, > > temporary name for the project). I think that first we should make > > sure that all the packages in the comps groups 'Core' and 'Base' that > > are not optional + kernel have a maintainer for that branch. Then we > > would automatically generate a list of all the packages that have > > UAEL branches and advertise UAEL to be that set of packages, and > > nothing more. > > > > The text for UAEL could be like > > > > Does this looks like a plan acceptable by the Fedora lead? > > > > Opinions, comments? > > My first impression is... "ok so there's now a formal process, and the result is that > there is no branch ever that uses this". The chances of finding sufficient capable volunteers > for even the base package set is... near zero. I stress "capable" here, and with this I mean > people who both have the time and the skill to track, evaluate and backport security fixes. The solution for security fixes won't be necessarily backports. It should be (in general) updates. If the update is not backward compatible and the maintainer want to do backports, fine. Otherwise it will be an update. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
