On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:23:34 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > 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. Well, as soon as Fedora Core 3 is transferred to Fedora Legacy, Fedora Extras 3 maintenance ought to be transferred to a similar community project, too. Where you write "security updates _should_ still be handled", that leads to an unfortunate scenario. Only MUSTs or NEEDNOTs move us forward. Extras package maintainers often upgrade to at least FC n+1, possibly even the latest FC. In other words, they abandon the older releases of FC and move on. This also implies that they either cannot do any testing on the old distribution version anymore, or they don't feel comfortable releasing updates for a distribution they don't use regularly. It would be overbearing to require Extras volunteers to extend their maintenance cycle beyond the life-cycle of Fedora Core. If there is community interest in a longer Fedora Extras life-cycle, it is up to additional community volunteers to contribute this. It may be the same packagers if they decide to continue with updates for legacy distributions. But similar to moving Fedora Core to Fedora Legacy, Fedora Extras ought to announce end-of-life and document the support cycle. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
