Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 02:19:09PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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?
See my other reply.
Them preferring leaving users exposed to vulnerabilities?
Obviously not, since the newer distros are maintained.
With disruptive changes that make it impossible to know if your hardware
or applications will still work after an upgrade - and what is the
alternative if they don't?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
