reviving Fedora Legacy

David Woodhouse dwmw2 at infradead.org
Wed Oct 15 07:36:05 UTC 2008


On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 01:40 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Why would we want to? Just let things going as long as there is at least one 
> maintainer committing something. Even if not all security issues get fixed, 
> it's better than if none gets fixed.

I disagree with that very strongly.

If we present the _appearance_ of a distro with security updates, while
in fact there are serious security issues being unfixed, then that is
_much_ worse than the current "That distro is EOL. Upgrade before you
get hacked" messaging.

For anything to have the Fedora name on it, it _must_ have guaranteed
security fixes for at least the highest priority issues.

(That's not a decree; I'm not in a position to make such. It's just
common sense.)

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com                              Intel Corporation




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list