On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 00:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > I don't argue against that. I think that's what should be advertized. > But does it hurt if we also say that "some packages may still be > updated if > the maintainer is willing". Again, inconsistent. That's a bad message to end users. "Are packages still supported? Well, that depends on the package...." ugly. > > Again, fuzzy message to end users. Why do some packages get > released on > > these older releases, but not other packages? We need consistency. > > Again I don't thinwe need absolute consistency. We could say "The > general > case is that new packages are not released for the old releases, but > it > is possible if the maintainer wants to.". Thats, fine, we can disagree. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
