On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:02:46AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 10:52 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > 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? > > Because no matter what we "say" is policy, end users would continue to > see random packages change in EOL releases, which is not a clear > message. Don't call them EOL, they're in legacy/maintenance mode ;) The message to the users is that after mode switching to legacy the support for package upgrades drops. That's different from the promise of no packages upgrades ever. > Come on guys, if you need a longer lifespan than what Fedora > provides (the full thing, including Legacy), mayhap you need to be > looking for a different project. RHEL/CentOS exists for a reason. Noone is asking for longer lifespans, on the contrary, most of us (the packagers) would be very happy if there were no or a minimal maintenance lifetime only, so we won't have to fork the packages into current vs mainentance modes. In fact the long total lifespan is what generates this discussion. I think we're arguing on the same side. We all want to look forward with our packaging. And freezing upgrades on legacy releases will only make packagers spend more time with old stuff (backporting security fixes) that will then be missed with ongoing stuff. Even in the ideal situation of 2 current and 2 legacy releases you end up maintaining 3 versions of a package. And right now we are still far from 2 legacy releases (we're at 5). It's a workload calculation, where you don't want to penalize packagers, because you do want them to foxus on current/future releases. The next suggestion would be to completely take the load of the forward looking packager and plac it on a security team. That will also not really help, after all, the package maintainer is the one that knows about his package the best and will need the smallest amount of time to fix it (or upgrade it). So if you put all available manhours together (packagers and security team) you will find that most of the time it will be cheaper to have the package maintainer fix the packages. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpSfTH6MBSbP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
