[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RFC: Fedora Extras EOL Policy



On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:15:03 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs math uh edu) said: 
> > >>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com> writes:
> > 
> > BN> With Extras... it's 'maybe, depending on the package'. Do you
> > BN> really expect someone to look at a web page that has maintenance
> > BN> status for 3000 packages?
> > 
> > The only thing I really care about is that I not be prevented from or
> > overly encumbered in updating the packages I maintain for older Fedora
> > releases.
> > 
> > So if I just have to introduce myself to the extras-legacy team and
> > say "I'll be maintaining denyhosts for FC-3" and don't have to go
> > through additional process then I'm perfectly happy.  But if I have to
> > go through additional review or learn a different build system then
> > I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble.
> 
> The idea is to get Legacy building through the same sort of system
> as Extras... it's just not there yet.

This is a confusing comment and indicates that afterall we may need to
come up with a different name. Fedora _Extras_ Legacy will be part of
Fedora Extras. Same CVS server, same buildsystem, same repository.
Slightly modified policies are only needed to make sure that a special
group of people is permitted to apply legacy maintenance where the primary
package owners decline. This is alongside the policies for a Fedora Extras
Security Team.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]