reviving Fedora Legacy

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon Oct 13 06:16:49 UTC 2008


On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 18:22 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote:
> Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > I'm not talking about QA.. I'm talking about verifying that the
> > volunteer maintainers are actually still in place a year+ later.  How
> > do make users aware that packages are unmaintained for 1+ years? Do
> > you plan to expire unmaintained packages so new users don't have
> > access to them?You have to have some process to verify that the
> > maintainers are there because you are explicitly stating that the life
> > of branch depends on an accurate count of the active maintainers. if
> > you don't build a process to try to verify maintainer involvement..the
> > branches could live forever because there is no pre-defined EOL.
> >
> >   
> I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained.
Ask yourselves: How can EPEL be maintained?

>   If the goal is increased stability and security patches,
The goal would be "extended life-time" at "no guarantees/use at your own
risk".

>  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*.
Right, ... the consequence would be instability and security risks
gradually creeping in. 

This is bad, nevertheless it still would better than letting people stay
with totally discontinued/unmaintained Fedoras or with driving them away
from Fedora and redirecting them to CentOS or RHEL.

> 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.

Right, ... nevertheless, such an extended life-time would provide people
more time to upgrade to a newer Fedora.

Ralf





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list