Security Response Team / EOL
Jesse Keating
jkeating at redhat.com
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: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060429/8243029e/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list