Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Xan Charbonnet wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 10:35 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Xan Charbonnet wrote:
> >
> > > I can't seem to find it now, but I believe somewhere official there is (or was
> > > at one time?) a diagram showing how LTS would allow skipping stable versions:
> >
> > No, that does not and cannot work.
> >
> > LTS is “just” the extension of normal stable-security work, for a
> > subset of architectures and packages.
>
> To clarify, I don't think the idea was to upgrade a given system from Wheezy
> to Stretch to Bullseye, but to be able to run Wheezy until Stretch was
> released, and to be able to run Stretch until Bullseye is released.
>
> So it's not about upgrading, but about not having to qualify a new version
> of all software every 2 years. Every 4 years is a big improvement, which I
> understood to be the goal of LTS.
>
>
> > Given that wheezy currently gets the most amount of security fixes,
> > most quickly too, for several noticeable packages, it’s not unjusti‐
> > fied to want to continue running it, and quite a boon for LTS.
>
> Agreed, of course. My thinking on suggesting a separate *-backports-lts
> repository is that that makes it clear which backported packages are still
> receiving security support and which are not.
The lts guys can do whatever they want, but not inside the backports team.
We discussed that on the list and the interest on continuing lts support was
nearly zero. Which doesn't justify running a whole suite.
Alex
Reply to: