On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:15:03 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > >>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > BN> With Extras... it's 'maybe, depending on the package'. Do you > > BN> really expect someone to look at a web page that has maintenance > > BN> status for 3000 packages? > > > > The only thing I really care about is that I not be prevented from or > > overly encumbered in updating the packages I maintain for older Fedora > > releases. > > > > So if I just have to introduce myself to the extras-legacy team and > > say "I'll be maintaining denyhosts for FC-3" and don't have to go > > through additional process then I'm perfectly happy. But if I have to > > go through additional review or learn a different build system then > > I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble. > > The idea is to get Legacy building through the same sort of system > as Extras... it's just not there yet. This is a confusing comment and indicates that afterall we may need to come up with a different name. Fedora _Extras_ Legacy will be part of Fedora Extras. Same CVS server, same buildsystem, same repository. Slightly modified policies are only needed to make sure that a special group of people is permitted to apply legacy maintenance where the primary package owners decline. This is alongside the policies for a Fedora Extras Security Team. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
