Replies: 1 comment
-
I think it is best that a page for example for Python tracks only the support cycle of Python upstream, and doesn't add that RedHat for example still provides security fixes for Python 2.
This should stay the current plan. The Ubuntu life cycle for the kernel if relevant should stay in the Ubuntu endoflife page, and not be on the Linux kernel page. One tracks Ubuntu life cycle, the other tracks upstream kernel life cycle. Even though Ubuntu supports older kernels for longer periods of time past upstream, this has its issues, and we should not compare Ubuntu and upstream support, since they are very different projects with very different objectives and maintainers.
No. Upstream Qt support != Distro Qt support. They are very different things. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
As a few examples:
And so on... Since there are a lot of different linux distributions, each with their own support cycles (and ways to split the support cycles by repositories) - it is hard to figure out whether or not a packge might be supported. Our current plan has always been to focus on the upstream project, and track distributions on their own.
Is this a good approach long-term? Should (for eg), the Qt page add a link to repology mentioning you should check your distribution?
I'm not sold on the idea of tracking everything everywhere, it might just make things too confusing. The idea of "tracking upstream" is also a clear separation of concerns for the project (which keeps it maintainable). But open to ideas and feedback.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions