Security Response Team / EOL

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at
Sat Apr 29 08:52:27 UTC 2006

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 04:22:26PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:20 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > I don't think this constraint is productive. As Axel said keeping
> > spec files synced is simpler most of the time for the
> > packager. And for the users it depends, some want updates other
> > don't. I would prefer something along
> > 
> >   Maintainers are urged to consider that many users expect that
> >   only severe bugfix or security fixes are fixed in maintainance
> >   state.  However packagers may still update their packages if
> >   they find it more convenient or if they perceive that enough
> >   users want an update.
> > 
> > This is fuzzy, but I think it is better that way.
> 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."

How about a compromise? Externally (toward the users) the official
position is that there is no official support (*) anymore other than
security fixes, while packagers are still allowed to update legacied'
releases at their own discretion w/o having to go through loops?

(*) support != SLAs/warranty
Axel.Thimm at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list