Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Why would we want to? Just let things going as long as there is at > > least one maintainer committing something. Even if not all security > > issues get fixed, it's better than if none gets fixed. > I'd love to see this. It could e.g. keep a service in the process of > being decommissioned alive a little longer without having to do the > usual upgrade. Currently you have *6 months* to move over to the next Fedora... > It wouldn't be good for anything too serious, I.e., completely useless. > but if noone steps up > for a necessary security patch, I could do it myself Sorry, I very much doubt that. > and then get to > share the result with everyone else on that obsolete release. I would > have to test all updates locally, but for services on the way out that > is generally easier than testing the full upgrade. It is even easier to migrate to CentOS and keep going with that one... the difference is that the bumps in the road are much bigger, but you have a couple of years to migrate your stuff. > If it breaks something for someone, well, they should be more careful > which updates they apply, especially once official support is gone. It > might even encourage an upgrade and perhaps keep one box from being > compromised. How is that less work in the longer run than just keep upgrading or moving to some LTS distribution? -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
