On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:33:38PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Michael Meskes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Anyhow, I doubt we can reasonably expect to maintain *all* packages for aHow about not combining two different topics? I don't see a reason why a
> > longer
> > period. How about starting with a defined list of packages that we do care
> > about in an LTS? I would start with just the basic system and the most
> > important server packages.
> Well, and how about starting to look at RFH for packages you care about
> right now and help with security (and SPU) updates right now, even without
discussion about a way to provide LTS needs to get shot with the suggestion to
help with some random package instead. Of course you definitely have a point in
that some/a lot of packages need work, but I think it is also reasonable to
discuss a strategy for a desirable (IMO) long-term goal.