Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports
On 12/01/18 21:48, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> * Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> [2018-01-12 08:33:42 CET]:
>> On 12/01/18 19:50, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 11:13 -0600, Xan Charbonnet wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a Meltdown fix for the wheezy-backports kernel (3.16) on the way?
>>>>> Thanks very much!
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry to tell you that wheezy-backports has not been supported for
>>>> nearly a year now. This was never widely announced (I can no longer
>>>> find the announcement) and I think this end-of-life was handled
>>>> extremely badly by the backports administrators.
>>> It was handled badly by the backporters. I really hope you don't expect
>>> the administrators to do the backports. There was a discussion and nearly
>>> noone was in favour of doing those backports.
>>>
>>> And of course we announced it - as we always do announce changes:
>>>
>>> https://backports.debian.org/news/stretch-backports/
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/06/msg00055.html
>>
>> That doesn't actually mention wheezy at all. Is oldstable, even if
>> maintained, never considered a source for (non-sloppy) backports to
>> oldoldstable?
>
> It does mention deprecation of LTS support for backports, and wheezy is
> LTS. It didn't work out in the past.
>
> Of course oldstable can be considered a source for backports to
> oldoldstable, but please read that paragraph again:
>
> | Unfortunately it didn't worked, most maintainers didn't wanted to
> | support oldoldstable-backports (squeeze) for the lifetime of LTS. So
> | things started to rot in squeeze and most packages didn't received
> | updates. After long discussions we decided to deprecate LTS support for
> | backports.
>
> Yes, it was talking about squeeze there, but now that wheezy is LTS how
> do you expect that issue of noone maintaining the oldoldstable-backports
> magically changed, given that wheezy is now oldoldstable?
>
>> I had kind of assumed that as long as n and n+1 remained supported,
>> backports would also exist.
>
> And it's existing. It's just not maintained. That workload can't be
> on the shoulders of the backports team which consists of just two
> people, so it depends on individual maintainers wanting to do it.
>
> LTS is supported through financing people working on it. Backports for
> LTS aren't. See the difference?
Apologies for my misunderstanding. I hadn't made the mental link from
wheezy to LTS (I don't (think I) have any wheezy machines left myself,
but have acquired clients who do).
I guess I'll push for jessie upgrades, or try the jessie kernel, or
build a new kernel - where linode etc isn't providing a new one anyway.
Thanks for all the good work anyway :-)
Richard
Reply to: