Re: Unsing stable-backports as an ugprade path to stable+1
On 19.01.22 14:16, 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.
perhaps this could be solved by distributing ceph of version 16.2.x and
another package named e.g. ceph17 with description stating that is supports
upgrade from ceph16.
both in testing and backports.
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.
unfortunate :(
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
Reply to: