On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 07:33 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:42:28AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:36:05AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > >The aim here is not to present the _appearance_ of a distro with > >security updates but give the choice to the user either to upgrade or to > >stick with a distro where some packages will not be maintained. > >Something along "That distro is EOL. Upgrade before you get hacked. > >Alternatively, and at your own risk, you can enable a repository where > >some packages are updated on a volunteer basis, but some packages aren't > >maintained anymore." > > > >With a page listing which packages are still supported. > > The issue you will have is that people will not be comfortable opening the > ACLs for things like the kernel or glibc or gcc. And their rationale being what? Them preferring leaving users exposed to vulnerabilities? Or is their rationale of personal nature? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
