Security Response Team / EOL

Jesse Keating jkeating at
Sat Apr 29 06:18:42 UTC 2006

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 00:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> 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, inconsistent.  That's a bad message to end users.  "Are packages
still supported?  Well, that depends on the package...."  ugly.

> > 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.".

Thats, fine, we can disagree.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list