On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:52:53AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:05:28 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > The users > > should trust the packager (and the fedora extras community) for doing the > > right kind of maintainance. > > Trust will become mistrust with every bugzilla ticket where a package > maintainer doesn't respond, with every security vulnerability which a user > believes is not fixed soon enough, with every package version that is seen > as too old compared with upstream releases, with every package that is > assigned to extras-orphan in bugzilla, [...] I completly agree. But this these are not issues for fedora extras for eol fedora core versions. It is an issue for fedora extras as a whole. And my point is that the response for these issues is not to have a well defined maintainance policy for fedora extras legacy, similar with what is done for fedora core legacy (no new package, only security fixes, or even a review for every update and an approval for pending updates), but to tackle the issues for fedora extras as a whole. > We need policies which document our goals and our procedures. To create an > environment which makes it easier and more convenient for contributors to > help where help is [or seems to be] needed. To avoid that the road of > "contact the maintainer" becomes a dead end with a sign which reads "so > the maintainer doesn't respond -- what now?". To document what we try to > achieve. Policies and procedures which make it possible to verify and > measure whether we do achieve what we try to achieve. I started a thread on those subjects, to avoid having these issues mixed with the fedora for eol fedora core versions issues. So far nobody seems to be interested :-(. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
