On Friday 20 October 2006 11:36, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >On 10/20/06, Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Friday 20 October 2006 10:48, Eric Rostetter wrote: >> > IMHO, Fedora Legacy was started for RHL, not FC, and the name is >> > shouldn't dictate policy, the original purpose should dictate policy. >> >> Actually no. Fedora Legacy came from when Fedora was created. Fedora >> Alternatives and Extras were other proposed projects. I picked up >> Legacy because I wanted to provide Fedora to my customers, and provide >> them a slightly longer life span. I was persuaded to do updates for >> RHL too, which I really think was a mistake. > >I am getting deja-vu from the last time we tried fixing things about 6 >months ago. I think the problem isn't RHL updates, Fedora updates etc. > >The problem is that we are just beat. Jesse has a kid, a release >cycle, a new knee, and a lot of other stuff on his real job. The other >people who have been doing stuff have also had 'stuff happen', and >temporary schedule changes that have become permanent. > >I just have enough time currently to answer questions for people on >#fedora-legacy, trying to put in 10-20 hours to qa a package because I >don't know how much qa it really takes to ship a fix (especially after >all the negative feedback when we put out a patch that 'broke' >systems). > >Most of the other people who have been really interested in the >project have been interested in a certain release (FC1, RHL-7.2, etc) >and once we stopped supporting it, they went away. I really do not >know of anyone new who has wanted to support FC-4 or FC-5 in 4 months. > >Maybe the question we should be asking is: Can we do this? We don't >have the number of people that Debian Security has on supporting old >releases.. and because we have fallen so far behind with everything.. >can we dig ourselves out.. or do we need to completely reboot the >whole thing (new people, new goals, new name) with the new people >really knowing that > >A) we arent going to get much help from 3rd party vendors >B) we arent going to get much help from the community
I'd comment that for this fedora user at least, the security etc stuffs should be extended at least to the point where we each of us, has a system, old though it may be in FC years, that works and does everything WE want it to do. Throwing us "to the wolves" doesn't make me want to format and update at anywhere near the release cycle for FC. My email archive alone goes back into 1998 here. Yes, there are backups, and I do them rather religiously at the feet of a gal named amanda, but it would still be a weeks work to get stuff back to the Just Works(TM) state here if I was to put FC5 on this box today. But after an extended rattlesnake sorting session on my lappy, FC5 is now looking & working pretty good, so FC6 will probably get installed when its out or shortly after. But I'm not about to do this every 6 months as planned by the FC people, I have other things these machines need to do, and do on a set it up in cron so I can forget about it scenario. My $0.02, adjust for inflation. :-) >C) etc -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
