|| ||David Woodhouse <dwmw2-AT-infradead.org>|
|| ||Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list-AT-redhat.com>|
|| ||Re: reviving Fedora Legacy|
|| ||Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:36:05 +0100|
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
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
fedora-devel-list mailing list
to post comments)