On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 06:55, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On 25 Mar 2003 21:00:21 -0800, Michael Knepher wrote: > > > > > How does the errata support in the new RHL compare to that of > > > > the old RHL? > > > > Prior to that EOL "clarification" (at least one year, longer for popular > > releases), what was Red Hat's publicly stated EOL policy, or were they > > making it up as they went along? > > Prior to that, they had a highly confusing statement on the errata > overview page. IIRC, it boiled down to something like supported is > the current major release cycle, the previous release cycle and the > latest release of the cycle prior to that. So, at the time of 8.0, > 7.x and 6.2 were still supported.
Under the old plan there were two different policies, IIRC For the final release in a series it was either 3 years from release date, which was effectively two major releases. I'm basing my EOL date on either the announced date or when the last errata was released. Version | Release Date | EOL Date --------------------------------- 4.2 | May 1997 | May 2000 5.2 | Oct 1998 | Nov 2001 6.2 | March 2000 | Mar 2003 7.2 | Sept 2001 | Sept 2004* * This, of course, has changed. RHL7.2 has an announced EOL date of Dec 2003. It is somewhat murkier when the EOL dates for the other releases were. I think it was either 12 or 18 months from release date. It is interesting to note that the announced 6.2 EOL date, and probably the 7.0 and 7.1 ones, are right in line with the old policies. The only real changes have been to 7.2 and later. RHEL 2.1 is very similar to RHL7.2 and has an EOL date in 2007, and later version numbers haven't followed the same pattern as previous versions. (7.3 -> 8.0 -> 9, rather than 8.0 -> 8.1 -> 8.2) Thanks. Peter -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
