Security Response Team / EOL
pertusus at free.fr
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