Re: Uploading all of OpenStack Liberty to jessie-backports: need advice
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 04:52:34PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 15:50 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> > > On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 14:30 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > > The stable releases are what most users want to use OpenStack. Sid /
> > > > Testing is too disruptive for a production environment. The Icehouse
> > > > version in Stable is too old, and has lost support from upstream nearly
> > > > a year ago.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > So why was it ever considered suitable for a stable release?
> >
> > Why shouldn't it be included in stable?
> >
> > We also have web browsers in stable that are unsupported (everything
> > except iceweasel and chromium) or applications like the evolution mail
> > program or the amarok music player which use webkit-based HTML widget to
> > display HTML from untrusted sources, but the HTML widgets have no
> > security support.
> >
> > Other examples mentioned in the release notes include node.js or mediawiki.
>
> I would prefer that all those packages were excluded from stable
> releases.
You are aware that probably 99% of our packages have no upstream
maintenance guarantees whatsoever?
If you send them a bug report, they might make a new point release, or
maybe not, but most won't commit to any specific timeframe.
So unless you are talking about a core set of packages or something very
speicifc like "internet-facing client or severs" or so, this will not be
a very good preference IMO.
Michael
Reply to: