Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release
On 2016-07-04 18:08, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
How would we keep that working given that backports keeps changing?
Backports changing isn't an issue AFAICT if we're only publishing a
netinst image which has all the kernel bits (kernel udebs), as opposed
Or are you thinking of other issues?
that was the main issue. Apart from the updates part below.
Would we copy the kernel at the time into a special suite?
I don't think that's needed.
How would updates work?
- d-i: nothing has to change (except if we want to republish a new
image with an ever newer kernel version), see above.
Where to would we upload d-i? Under what name? With what content? Would
we re-spin stable d-i plus backports-related changes into backports?
Would backports ftp-masters be ok with that?
I feel somewhat uncomfortable with one-offs that are not being updated
anymore and cannot even be updated if need be because the kernel will
have disappeared by them (as it tracks testing rather than its own
- installed system: as usual for systems with backported packages
(NotAutomatic & ButAutomaticUpgrades).
So which metapackages would we need to install to keep track of new
major kernel versions in backports?
Kind regards and thanks