On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 01:40 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > 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 disagree with that very strongly. If we present the _appearance_ of a distro with security updates, while in fact there are serious security issues being unfixed, then that is _much_ worse than the current "That distro is EOL. Upgrade before you get hacked" messaging. For anything to have the Fedora name on it, it _must_ have guaranteed security fixes for at least the highest priority issues. (That's not a decree; I'm not in a position to make such. It's just common sense.) -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
