Re: opendjk-11 update stuck in policy queue
Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> writes:
>>
>> > We just failed in providing an announcement.
>>
>> On this topic, why not declare a roadplan for buster-backports in
>> Bullseye's release notes? Personally I think it would be nice to keep
>> it alive for some period (>= six months?) post-bullseye release to not
>> rush sysadmins who take time to validate upgrades of stable releases
>> before putting them into production.
> We don't need a plan, we have a policy. Old-Stable backports is
> supported as its officially supported by Debian (which is 1 year after
> the next release). LTS is an "external" approach. And the backports
> maintainer decided a few years ago to not support it.
>
> Alex
Where is this policy formally documented and communicated to sysadmins
and end-users, outside of historical mailing list ephemera (ie: tribe
knowledge)? Maybe it exists on salsa? If so, I don't think sysadmins
and end-users should be expected to dig around in salsa for stuff like
this. Apologies in advance if I just wasn't able to find it; this might
just be a discoverability issue.
https://backports.debian.org/ still says "Please keep in mind that
backports doesn't follow LTS. Which means that we will drop support for
oldstable (stretch) around one year after the release of buster. Thats
[sic] in sync with the - official - security support for oldstable".
Isn't it time to update backports.debian.org with something more
concrete? It's out of date, stretch-backports are long gone, and at
best a user can read that and suppose 1. given that stretch-backports
was supported for one year post buster release, 2. it is probable that
buster-backports will have one year support post bullseye release, but
that's not necessary true.
I'd be happy to submit a MR if you would point me to the repo :-)
Kind regards,
Nicholas
Reply to: