On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 04:22:26PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:20 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > I don't think this constraint is productive. As Axel said keeping > > spec files synced is simpler most of the time for the > > packager. And for the users it depends, some want updates other > > don't. I would prefer something along > > > > Maintainers are urged to consider that many users expect that > > only severe bugfix or security fixes are fixed in maintainance > > state. However packagers may still update their packages if > > they find it more convenient or if they perceive that enough > > users want an update. > > > > This is fuzzy, but I think it is better that way. > > Because this leaves things fuzzy for end users. Some packages are > updated, so why aren't all? It leaves things very ambiguous. We need > to give users a clear message that "This release is in maintenance mode. > Consider it deprecated. Please update." How about a compromise? Externally (toward the users) the official position is that there is no official support (*) anymore other than security fixes, while packagers are still allowed to update legacied' releases at their own discretion w/o having to go through loops? (*) support != SLAs/warranty -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpk2SV51HGGX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
