Hello, On Wed 19 Jan 2022 at 02:16PM +01, Thomas Goirand wrote: > This question is mostly asked to the backports ftp masters, though > anyone voicing an opinion is welcome. > > I've just uploaded Ceph 16.2.7 to bullseye-backports, as it reached > testing. Obviously, this is to allow using the latest version in Stable. > However, whenever Ceph Quincy (ie: 17.2.x) will be released, I'm > wondering if I should upload it to Unstable. Indeed, Ceph only support > skipping a single version. As Bullseye contains 14.2.21, it will only > support upgrading to 16.2.x. > > So, if I am to upload Ceph Quincy (17.x.x, if you're following) whenever > it is ready upstream, if Debian is to provide some kind of Stable to > Stable+1 path, we must keep somehow a repository for our users to > upgrade to 16.2.x, and then I am wondering if, from the > bullseye-backports FTP master perspective, it's fine to leave 16.2.x, > and never upgrade the backports bullseye-backports to 17.x.x. > > The challenge here is that Ceph release cycle for 2 releases is a little > bit shorter than Debian's 1 release cycle, so the risk is that Debian is > always behind, and looses security support. You'd need the release team's okay too, and based on a previous discussion similar to this one, I do not believe they would be on board. Sorry to hear about this unfortunate situation. Hope something can be figured out. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature