fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 8/26/2010 11:53 PM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Thursday 26 of August 2010 21:21:53 Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> We probably need to attack this trend more aggressively, like putting
>>> expiration dates into the installer after which it'll just refuse to
>>> install, stuffing fedora-release-n+1 into the Fedora n updates repository
>>> at Fedora n's EOL date etc.
>>
>> Not only is this disingenuous, but it also contradicts Fedora's
>> "Freedom" policy.  Adding a big fat warning message to the installer,
>> however, is much less of a problem and gets the message across just as
>> effectively.  Just make sure that the "expiration date" is far enough
>> out in the future that we can be certain that it will occur after the
>> release's EOL date since we don't know when that will be at the time of
>> image creation.
>
> I don't think it should be far enough. It should be some time before EOL
> happens. What's the point installing and configuring new system that will EOL
> tomorrow / after one week? But still... +1 to warning message in the installer

At the time the install images are composed the release's EOL date has 
not yet been decided, so we would be stuck with guessing a date and 
hoping it will be somewhat close.

Fedora releases are either "Supported" or "Unsupported."  Unless the 
community wants to define some third, "Sort-of-supported" state then 
there should be no functional changes in the installer's and 
repositories' behaviors until after the release goes "Unsupported."

-- 
Garrett Holmstrom