RFC: Fedora Extras EOL Policy

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Tue Apr 18 12:12:31 UTC 2006

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:52:53AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:05:28 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > The users
> > should trust the packager (and the fedora extras community) for doing the 
> > right kind of maintainance.
> Trust will become mistrust with every bugzilla ticket where a package
> maintainer doesn't respond, with every security vulnerability which a user
> believes is not fixed soon enough, with every package version that is seen
> as too old compared with upstream releases, with every package that is
> assigned to extras-orphan in bugzilla, [...]

I completly agree. But this these are not issues for fedora extras for 
eol fedora core versions. It is an issue for fedora extras as a whole. 
And my point is that the response for these issues is not to have a well 
defined maintainance policy for fedora extras legacy, similar with what 
is done for fedora core legacy (no new package, only security fixes, or 
even a review for every update and an approval for pending updates), but 
to tackle the issues for fedora extras as a whole. 

> We need policies which document our goals and our procedures. To create an
> environment which makes it easier and more convenient for contributors to
> help where help is [or seems to be] needed. To avoid that the road of
> "contact the maintainer" becomes a dead end with a sign which reads "so
> the maintainer doesn't respond -- what now?". To document what we try to
> achieve. Policies and procedures which make it possible to verify and
> measure whether we do achieve what we try to achieve.

I started a thread on those subjects, to avoid having these issues mixed
with the fedora for eol fedora core versions issues. So far nobody seems
to be interested :-(.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list