Security Response Team / EOL

Patrice Dumas pertusus at
Fri Apr 28 22:06:57 UTC 2006

> Because this leaves things fuzzy for end users.  Some packages are
> updated, so why aren't all?  It leaves things very ambiguous.  We need
> to give users a clear message that "This release is in maintenance mode.
> Consider it deprecated.  Please update."

I don't argue against that. I think that's what should be advertized. 
But does it hurt if we also say that "some packages may still be updated if
the maintainer is willing".

> Again, fuzzy message to end users.  Why do some packages get released on
> these older releases, but not other packages?  We need consistency.

Again I don't thinwe need absolute consistency. We could say "The general 
case is that new packages are not released for the old releases, but it 
is possible if the maintainer wants to.".

> > infrastructure and the guideline are kept unchanged, I am all for

> > saying
> > 
> Support is a reasonable expectation that bug reports will get looked at,
> security updates will be addressed, etc...

I don't really understand your point, but I think that a maintainer should
not be prevented to support any release if he wants to.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list