> If someone uses Fedora Core 5, they can be certain that the content will > be maintained up until point X, and after that it will be looked at for > security issues by the existing Fedora Legacy team (which they can join.) > > With Extras... it's 'maybe, depending on the package'. Do you really expect > someone to look at a web page that has maintenance status for 3000 packages? Not really. What I want is that each maintainer decide for his package what kind of maintainance he does. And only if he does none (and nobody steped up) the package should be taken by the fedora extra legacy team which may have an homogenous maintainance goal, or not. For the current extra the maintainance mode is inhomogenous, some packages are updated a lot, other aren't, some are unmaintained, maybe for some there are only security fixes backports. Is it a problem? No. Having an homogenous maintainance mode for extras packages for end of life fedora core distros seems to me to be an unnecessary goal which in my opinion puts constraints on the maintainers witout benefit. It also puts some constraints on the users, as some users may want different kind of maintainance for different packages, and if they agree with the maintainer on that this would only benefit them. I am not opposed at all to another repository with only security fixes backported to fedora extras packages, that would be great. But I don't think it is what fedora extra packages for eol fedora core should be. In my opinion it should basically be the same than fedora extras for living fedora core distros: same infrastructure, same requirements, same guidelines. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
