[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release

(Please keep me cc'd.)

Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> (2016-07-04):
> On 2016-07-04 15:12, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2016-07-04):
> >>There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> >>other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> >>similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> >>like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
> >>
> >> * backports kernel
> >
> >That's a given.
> Does that mean "kernel from backports"?


> 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
to netboot.

Or are you thinking of other issues?

> Would we copy the kernel at the time into a special suite?

I don't think that's needed.

> How would updates work?

Updates to?
 - d-i: nothing has to change (except if we want to republish a new
   image with an ever newer kernel version), see above.
 - installed system: as usual for systems with backported packages
   (NotAutomatic & ButAutomaticUpgrades).

> That is to mean: I can see how this would work as a sort of
> continuously built thing whenever the kernel in backports changes and
> the supporting d-i changes are committed. But in the terms of a
> release seems to be a little hard.
> >> * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
> >
> >You know there are patches around for that.
> >
> >> * X drivers
> >
> >I don't see backports for them.
> Would it also mean X proper or "just" drivers?

Last I did backports for X, backports ftpmasters insisted on not getting
just the drivers. So I ended up backporting the whole X stack. I'm not
sure what happens in the X world these days (is backporting just drivers
feasible and/or desirable), or whether backports ftpmasters would decide
otherwise now. (Note: that was 5 years ago.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: