reviving Fedora Legacy

[Robert Locke]

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 22:14 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 06:22:16PM -0700, Bob Arendt wrote:
> > I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained.  If the 
> > goal is increased stability and security patches, you need to 
> > guarantee that you have folks supporting backpatches to the kernel, 
> > glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and several other large and 
> > complex packages.  Incorporating new security patches into old 
> > baselines is *hard*. Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 
> > months.  How many legacy Fedora's would be retained?  At some point 
> > it seems the legacy volunteer force would saturate and legacy 
> > Fedora's would have to start dropping off every 6 months.
> 
> Why do we need to guarantee any more than active Fedora releases 
> guarantee?  Forget backporting.  Just upgrade the package.  Take it 
> from the current Fedora and rebuild it if necessary.

And then have everyone complaining when the "upgrade" to the new version
introduced an incompatibility.  Take a look at the recent complaining as
KDE moved forward.  Why not just upgrade to the next Fedora release
then?  If you want security/stability, it requires backporting....

But, then, I let RHEL/CentOS take care of that for me.... :-)

--Rob