Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 00:39, John Summerfied wrote: > >> Whether the policy is the same as always is not the point. The point is >> that it's silly. It forces users to make untimely choices (such as go to >> a beta release) or to make needless choices and do needless work (such >> as reconfigure their updating software or install a soon-to-retire >> release) or to make unsafe choices (such as to use unmaintained software). > > The simple fix for this would be for either the final FC3 update > to install a yum repository change so subsequent updates > would continue to come in from the legacy repo or just let > the legacy team take over maintenance of the existing repository > location - or make the existing repo mirror the legacy one. > > Failing to do this is going to leave a huge number of machines > vulnerable to future security problems even if they had been > set up to do automatic updates. That's not a good thing for > a distribution's reputation. Letting the Fedora team change > focus as planned makes sense. Forcing all users to make a > manual configuration change in something that was supposed > to help them avoid manual work doesn't make sense. > Maybe, posting an update to Yum that changes the configuration to automatically point to the fedora-legacy servers would be a better idea. When they get the error messages about not being able to connect to the server they will definitely complain about the problem and then they could also be informed of the change and make the appropriate changes themselves. Just my 2-cents, James Kosin -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net
