On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 22:14 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 06:22:16PM -0700, Bob Arendt wrote: > > I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained. If the > > goal is increased stability and security patches, you need to > > guarantee that you have folks supporting backpatches to the kernel, > > glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and several other large and > > complex packages. Incorporating new security patches into old > > baselines is *hard*. Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 > > months. How many legacy Fedora's would be retained? At some point > > it seems the legacy volunteer force would saturate and legacy > > Fedora's would have to start dropping off every 6 months. > > Why do we need to guarantee any more than active Fedora releases > guarantee? Forget backporting. Just upgrade the package. Take it > from the current Fedora and rebuild it if necessary. And then have everyone complaining when the "upgrade" to the new version introduced an incompatibility. Take a look at the recent complaining as KDE moved forward. Why not just upgrade to the next Fedora release then? If you want security/stability, it requires backporting.... But, then, I let RHEL/CentOS take care of that for me.... :-) --Rob -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
