Am Samstag, den 18.02.2006, 20:59 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:30:14 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > We still have no defined EOL Policy for Fedora Extras -- there were some > > ideas and concepts floating around, but no real policy came out of it so > > far. I'd really like to get this solved somehow soon. That's why I'm > > writing this mail. > > Long mail, short story: Do we agree on common goals with regard to FE? Well, we're a lot of packagers now and in such a large group the goals that people have will always be a bit ^w^w different. > I'm not sure we do. Instead of discussing EOL policy bottom-up for FE3, > how about we discuss in general _what_ we at Fedora Extras _try_ to offer? Feel free to start a detailed discussion. I wrote enough long mails already today ;-) I'll see what comes out of the discussion or jump in when I feel a need for it. > [...] > > - It's Extras. It's unsupported by nature. > That's brain-fart type of comment. Suitable for flame-wars, not for > serious attempts at discussing this issue. Hopefully we all know what kind > of "support" Fedora Extras is about. I can agree here, but... > > - How many fire and forget packages are sitting in Extras? > > Same here. :( Let's shut down the whole show just because of a few black > sheep. ...I have to disagree here. Nobody talked about "shutting down the whole show" (well, not until now). We have no security SIG or something similar yet that watches security mailing-lists or fixes packages if the maintainer does not act im time. So this question is okay here IMHO (and was not from me in the beging, I just quoted it). > > And some concrete plans: > > > - shove FE3 into a Maintenance state for now -- no new packages, no big > > updates but still updates in case of security problems > > What is "concrete" about this suggestion? This part at the end of my original mail: - shove FE3 into a Maintenance state for now -- no new packages, no big updates but still updates from the usual maintainers in case of security problems [...] but how to we make sure that the Extras packagers still maintain their stuff? We can't. We need a Security SIG that oversees this and jumps in when the maintainer forgets to fix his package. FE4 would benefit from such a Security SIG, too. And even if we shove FE3 into a Maintenance state -- we need to define a EOL date for FE3 in any case. When? Release of FC6? FC7? When legacy drops the belonging Fedora Core? > It's just another proposal > which doesn't suggest _who_ performs the updates. Maintainer -> If not the security SIG jumps in -- we need such a SIG anyway afaics. > Assume that some > packagers will _refuse_ releasing updates for a legacy FC. Sure. > > - we create an extras legacy team that takes over FE3 when FC3 is > > transfered to legacy > > +1 This is the only realistic suggestion. No community developer > interest, no show. Well, we already have community interest in a Security SIG and some maintainer that still want to maintain FE3. But we'll see, maybe enough people step up for FEL (Fedora Extras Legacy). We just need to find a solution -- even if that is "There was no community developer interest, so Fedora Extras 3 is EOL from now on." CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
