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