Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2006, 09:07 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:05:08 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 23:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:44:49 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 17:22 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 12:11 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > > > > - that mono will not be considered for inclusion in Extras for FC-3/FC-4 > > > > > > until FC-5 goes GOLD. > > > > > FC3 will be unsupported when FC5 test2 comes out. Should we still allow > > > > > new FC3 packages in extras after that?! > > > > It's at the maintainer's discretion. Note that FE currently has some > > > > packages with branches going all the way back to RHL9. > > > No. Fedora Extras is only for FC3 and above. The older branches are > > > fedora.us stuff. > > Nonetheless there is sufficient metadata in CVS for them. The > > buildsystem is another issue though. > > It's not that easy. Even if a few packagers still wanted to support RHL9 > (as an example) with Extras updates (or updates for old packages from > fedora.us, or even with new Extras), for the community project there must > be the decision _whether to support such an old release officially or > not_. It's a bit like "all or nothing". It would be bad to offer a > repository full of stuff which is out-of-date, insecure, untested, hardly > used anymore, and so on, just because a few bits are kept up-to-date. If a > few packagers continued with updates beyond an announced end-of-life, that > even might confuse users out there, who see the dates of the packages and > might believe the repository is still alive. End-of-life of a release of > Extras ought to mean: everyone, stop shipping updates and move on. That > ought to be policy. I agree mostly. Big updates shouldn't happen to Fedora Extras 3 anymore after EOL of Fedora Core 3. *Maybe* we should widen the timeframe a small bit and set the release of Fedora Core n+2 (this would be FC5 in this case). Maye even two or four additional weeks after that -- but not more. But security updates should still be handled by the Extras Maintainers for such a "mostly-end-of-life" Fedora Extras 3. Even if that means that a big version update is needed (but only if there is no other way to avoid that). And no, we can't simply drop this burden to Fedora Legacy. ;-) Just my 2 cent. CU thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
