Summer of Code

John Bailey rekkanoryo at
Wed Mar 26 12:41:14 EDT 2008

Luke Schierer wrote:
> Basically, Redhat is the only one I know actually *supporting* software
> after the upstream has dropped it.  We are, thanks to Stu's efforts,
> doing something lesser, we are worrying about if our software works with
>  obsolete libraries.

Ok, this makes sense and answers my question quite well.

> My thought was, how long are those obsolete libraries supported by
> _anyone_?  From that I hoped to derive an idea of how long it is
> reasonable to assume a meaningful number of people are using a given
> obsolete library version, and thus how long we might want to think about
> it.

Following the other branch that discusses the timeframes, 3 years does seem a
reasonable timeframe to support an obsoleted library version.  If we were to
adopt that now, it would obviously cause some chaos to ensue.  However, as Stu
indirectly suggested, it is something we could definitely do once we go to 3.0.0
and move forward from there.

> It seems to me that after a given span, we're sort of encouraging people
> not to update their system by enabling them to continue using "new"
> software on it.

I agree entirely.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list