Maintenance policy for older releases

Michel Salim michel.salim at gmail.com
Thu Nov 9 16:52:01 UTC 2006


On 11/9/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 November 2006 09:41, Michel Salim wrote:
> > Since FC-5 is still being supported in Core, what is the official line
> > of what Extras need to support? I can understand a maintainer being
> > uncomfortable releasing something he has not tested himself, but for
> > essentially bugfix releases it's probably better than nothing (and
> > that's what bug reports are for anyway).
> >
> > On the other extreme, is it OK to keep pushing updates for deprecated
> > releases, if the packages do not have other packages depending on
> > them? (So it won't trigger the need to rebuild other,
> > potentially-unmaintained, packages)
>
> Yes, until a release reaches 'maintenance' mode in which only severe bugfixes
> or security fixes should be issued.
>
Thanks for the clarification.

> See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/EOL
This only states what /not/ to do: if the release is in maintenance
state, only security updates should be issued. Is it stated anywhere
that for non-maintenance releases, packages should be kept in sync? If
not, which document in the Wiki should this be entered in?

I could add a reminder in the EOL page if it's needed.

Thanks,

-- 
Michel Salim

Don't worry about avoiding temptation -- as you grow older, it starts
avoiding you.
                -- The Old Farmer's Almanac




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list