Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 18:41 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:06:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 15:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:11:02 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
* With terms like "end-of-life", "life-cycle", "maintenance state" come
promises with regard to the expectations raised by our users. It is
important that we don't keep a legacy branch open just because parts of
the contributor community insist on publishing updates for it, while the
majority has moved on to do only the current branches.
Why not? If a part of the community is willing to maintain a package, they
should be able to do it.
That would be the "some do, some don't" playground.
Yes, and where is the problem?
The risk of FE becoming the infamous dumping ground of poorly maintained
packages.
Face it: It already partially is - Such is the situation, no reason to
complain about :-)
That is not entirely fair, there always will be periods when a
maintainer doesn't have time. The current if a maintainer doesn't do a
timely rebuild for a new Release orphan it, is one mechanism for shaking
out the real orphans and maybe we need another mechanism next to thayt,
but saying that FE is a dumping ground is unfair. Debian has far more
ancient packages (using ancient versus upstream as a maintainence
measurement here) then FE. Also even core has packages which lack
maintainance by this standard check out lm_sensors for example.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
