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